Sacrificing the Feminine to Fit In and Embracing the Feminine to Stand Out
Servicewomen’s Response to the Essentialist Gendered Practices of the U.S. Military
In: Journal of FemininitiesSearch for other papers by Stephanie Bonnes in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
Using in-depth interviews with 50 U.S. servicewomen, this study explores how institutional values, peer surveillance, and social control in the form of harassment function to devalue and regulate femininity in the military space. In a context that takes an essentialist view of gender that conflates femininity with weakness and assumes the ideal servicemember is masculine, many servicewomen respond by sacrificing femininity to avoid workplace harassment and to try to fit in. Women not only suppress feminine identity markers but also engage in defensive othering and posturing against other servicemembers perceived as more feminine to distance themselves further from femininity, reinforcing the gender binary. Further, this study uses interviews with women who served on Female Engagement Teams (fet) and Lioness Teams to highlight additional organizational meanings around femininity. While these programs were framed by the military as humanitarian in nature, fet and Lioness team members used essentialist views of gender to claim their femininity made them superior at intelligence-gathering, counterinsurgency, and combat missions. While this enables them to contest the masculine ideal of a servicemember, it ultimately leaves the gender binary intact. Overall, the military’s adherence to gender essentialism, coupled with a femmephobic environment, functions to regulate femininity in ways that uphold both the gender binary and a hierarchy that privileges masculinity over femininity.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, Jobs, and Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), pp. 139–158.
-
Acker, J. (1992). From Sex Roles to Gendered Institutions. Contemporary Sociology, 21(5), pp. 565–570.
-
Acker, J. (2006). Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations. Gender & Society, 20(4), pp. 441–464.
-
Ainsworth, S., Batty, A., and Burch, R. (2014). Women Constructing Masculinity in Volunteer Firefighting. Gender, Work & Organization, 21(1), pp. 37–56.
-
Alfrey, L., and Twine, F. W. (2017). Gender-fluid Geek Girls: Negotiating Inequality Regimes in the Tech Industry. Gender & Society, 31(1), pp. 28–50.
-
Allsep, M. (2013). The Myth of the Warrior: Martial Masculinity and the End of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Journal of Homosexuality, 60(2–3), pp. 381–400.
-
Archer, E. M. (2012). The Power of Gendered Stereotypes in the U.S. Marine Corps. Armed Forces & Society, 39(2), pp. 359–391.
-
Armstrong, E. A., Hamilton, L. T., Armstrong, E. M., and Seely, J. L. (2014). ‘Good Girls’: Gender, Social Class, and Slut Discourse on Campus. Social Psychology Quarterly, 77(2), pp. 100–122.
-
Barrett, F. J. (1996). The Organizational Construction of Hegemonic Masculinity: The Case of the US Navy. Gender, Work & Organization, 3(3), pp. 129–142.
-
Bayard de Volo, L., and Hall, L. (2015). ‘I Wish all the Ladies were Holes in the Road’: The U.S. Air Force Academy and the Gendered Continuum of Violence. Signs, 40(4), pp. 865–889.
-
Beals, G. E. (2010). Women Marines in Counterinsurgency Operations: Lioness and Female Engagement Teams. Marine Corps Combat Development Command. Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a604399.pdf.
-
Blair, K. L., and Hoskin, R. A. (2015). Experiences of Femme Identity: Coming Out, Invisibility and Femmephobia. Psychology & Sexuality, 6(3), pp. 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2014.921860.
-
Block, K., Croft, A., and Schmader, T. (2018). Worth Less?: Why Men (and Women) Devalue care-oriented Careers. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, p. 1353.
-
Bonnes, S. (2020). Service-women’s Responses to Sexual Harassment: The Importance of Identity Work and Masculinity in a Gendered Organization. Violence Against Women, 26(12–13), pp. 1656–1680.
-
Bonnes, S. (2021). An Intersectional Approach to Military Sexual Violence. Sociology Compass, 15(12).
-
Bonnes, S. (2022). Femininity Anchors: Heterosexual Relationships and Pregnancy as Sites of Harassment for U.S. Servicewomen. American Sociological Review, 87(4), pp. 618–643.
-
Bonnes, S. (2024). Hardship Duty: Women’s Experiences with Sexual Harassment, Sexual Assault, and Discrimination in the U.S. Military. New York: Oxford University Press.
-
Bonnes, S., and Jacobs, J. (2017). Gendered Representations of Apartheid: The Women’s Jail Museum at Constitution Hill. Museum & Society, 15(2), pp. 153–170.
-
Britton, D. M., and Logan, L. (2008). Gendered Organizations: Progress and Prospects. Sociology Compass, 2(1), pp. 107–121.
-
Burdett, F., Gouliquer, L., and Poulin, C. (2018). Culture of Corrections: The Experiences of Women Correctional Officers. Feminist Criminology, 13(3), pp. 329–349.
-
Burrelli, D. F. (2013). Women in Combat: Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42075.pdf.
-
Calarco, J. (2024). Holding it Together: How Women Became America’s Safety Net. Portfolio/Penguin/Penguin Random House.
-
Callahan, J. (2009). Manifestations of Power and Control: Training as the Catalyst for Scandal at the United States Air Force Academy. Violence Against Women, 15(10), pp. 1149–1168.
-
Cast, A. (2003). Power and the Ability to Define the Situation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(3), pp. 185–201.
-
Chappell, L. (2014). Conflicting Institutions and the Search for Gender Justice at the International Criminal Court. Political Research Quarterly, 67(1), pp. 183–196.
-
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage.
-
Charmaz, K. (2012). The Power and Potential of Grounded Theory. Medical Sociology, 6, pp. 2–15.
-
Cohn, C. (2000). ‘How Can She Claim Equal Rights When She Doesn’t Have to do as Many push-Ups as I do?’ The Framing of Men’s Opposition to Women’s Equality in the Military. Men and Masculinities, 3(2), pp. 131–151.
-
Collins, P. H. (2004). Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism. New York, NY: Routledge.
-
Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities. 2nd ed. University of California Press.
-
Connell, C. (2021). A Few Good Gays: The Gendered Impact of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on Military Culture. University of California Press.
-
Connell, R. W., and Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), pp. 829–859.
-
Crowley, K., and Sandhoff, M. (2016). Just a Girl in the Army: U.S. Iraq War Veterans Negotiating Femininity in a Culture of Masculinity. Armed Forces & Society, 43, pp. 221–237.
-
Daminger, A. (2020). De-gendered Processes, Gendered Outcomes: How Egalitarian Couples Make Sense of Non-egalitarian Household Practices. American Sociological Review, 85(5), 806–829.
-
Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. (2019). Grooming Standards. Navy Personnel Command. Retrieved from https://dacowits.defense.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Gm7Fsualdaw%3D&portalid=48.
-
Department of Defense. (1994). Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule [Memorandum].
-
Deterding, N. M., and Waters, M. C. (2021). Flexible Coding of In-depth Interviews: A Twenty-first-century Approach. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), pp. 708–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799377.
-
Duncanson, C. (2009). Forces for Good? Narratives of Military Masculinity in Peacekeeping Operations. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 11(1), pp. 63–80.
-
Duncanson, C. (2015). Hegemonic masculinity and the possibility of change in gender relations. Men and Masculinities, 18, pp. 231–248.
-
Dwyer, R. E. (2013). The Care Economy? Gender, Economic Restructuring, and Job Polarization in the U.S. Labor Market. American Sociological Review, 78(3), pp. 390–416.
-
Elmore, C. (2024). Selling to Soldiers: Warrior Hero Masculinity and Missing Military Women in Stars and Stripes’ Iraq War Advertising. Feminist Media Studies, 24(3), pp. 559–574.
-
Emerson, R. (2001). Contemporary Field Research: Perspectives and Formulations. Waveland Press.
-
Enloe, C. H. (1994). The politics of constructing the American woman soldier. In E. Addis, V. E. Russo, L. Sebesta, and J. Campling, eds., Women Soldiers, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 100–125.
-
Enloe, C. (2000). Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives. University of California Press.
-
Ezzell, M. (2009). Barbie Dolls on the Pitch: Identity Work, Defensive Othering, and Inequality in Women’s Rugby. Social Problems, 56, pp. 111–131.
-
Faulkner, W. (2009). Doing Gender in Engineering Workplace Cultures: I. Observations from the Field. Engineering Studies, 1(1), pp. 3–18.
-
Fine, M., Weis, L., Weseen, S., and Wong, L. (2000). For Whom? Qualitative Research Representations and Social Responsibilities. In: N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, eds., Handbook for Qualitative Research. Sage, pp. 107–131.
-
Fluri, J. L. (2014). States of (in)security: Corporeal Geographies and the Elsewhere War. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32, pp. 795–814.
-
Fontana, A., and Frey, J. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In: N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, eds., Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, pp. 361–376.
-
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In: C. Geertz eds., The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, Basic Books, pp. 3–30.
-
Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine.
-
Greenburg, J. (2017). New Military Femininities: Humanitarian Violence and the Gendered Work of War among U.S. Servicewomen. Gender, Place & Culture, 24(8), pp. 1107–1126.
-
Gutiérrez-Rodríguez, E. (2010). Migration, Domestic Work and Affect: A Decolonial Approach on Value and the Feminization of Labor. Routledge.
-
Hale, H. (2008). The Development of British Military Masculinities through Symbolic Resources. Culture and Psychology, 14(3), pp. 305–332.
-
Hale, H. (2012). The Role of Practice in the Development of Military Masculinities. Gender, Work and Organization, 19(6), pp. 699–722.
-
Hamilton, L. T., Armstrong, E. A., Seeley, J. L., and Armstrong, E. M. (2019). Hegemonic Femininities and Intersectional Domination. Sociological Theory, 37(4), pp. 315–341.
-
Harris, K. L., McFarlane, M., and Wieskamp, V. (2020). The Promise and Peril of Agency as Motion: A Feminist New Materialist Approach to Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment. Organization, 27(5), pp. 660–679. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508419838697.
-
Higate, P. R. (2002). Traditional Gendered Identities: National Service and the All-volunteer Force. In: L. Mjøset and S. van Holde, eds., The Comparative Study of Conscription in the Armed Forces (20 vol). Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 229–235.
-
Hinojosa, R. (2010). Doing Hegemony: Military, Men, and Constructing a Hegemonic Masculinity. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 18(2), pp. 179–194. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1802.179.
-
Hockey, J. (2003). No More Heroes: Masculinity in the Infantry. In P. Higate (Ed.), Military masculinities: Identity and the state. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. pp. 15–25.
-
Höpfl, H. (2003). Becoming a (virile) Member: Women and the Military Body. Body and Society, 9(4), pp. 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X0394003.
-
Hoskin, R. A. (2017). Femme Theory: Refocusing the Intersectional Lens. Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Culture & Social Justice, 38(1), pp. 95–109.
-
Hoskin, R. A. (2019). Femmephobia: The Role of Anti-femininity and Gender Policing in lgbtq+ People’s Experiences of Discrimination. Sex Roles, 81, pp. 686–703.
-
Hoskin, R. A. (2020). ‘Femininity? It’s the Aesthetic of Subordination’: Examining Femmephobia, the Gender Binary, and Experiences of Oppression among Sexual and Gender Minorities. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49, pp. 2319–2339.
-
Hoskin, R. A. and Blair, K. L. (2022). Critical Femininities: A “New” Approach to Gender Theory. Psychology & Sexuality, 13(1), pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2021.1905052.
-
Hoskin, R. A., and Serafini, T. (2023). Critically Feminizing Family Science: Using Femme Theory to Generate Novel Approaches for the Study of Families and Relationships. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 15(2), pp. 292–312.
-
Hoskin, R. A., Serafini, T., and Gillespie, J. G. (2023). Femmephobia versus Gender Norms: Examining Women’s Responses to Competing and Contradictory Gender Messages. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 32(2), pp. 191–207.
-
Kane, E. (2006). No Way My Boys are Going to be like that: Parents’ Resistance to Children’s Gender Non-conformity. Gender & Society, 20(2), pp. 149–176.
-
Kanter, R. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
-
Karazi-Presler, T. (2021). Gendered Power at Work: Constituting Moral Worth in a Hypermasculine Organizational Culture. Cultural Sociology, 15(3), pp. 409–429.
-
Karazi-Presler, T., and Wasserman, V. (2024). “Hold Your Nose and Harness these Men”: Sexual Vulnerability in a Hyper-masculine Organization—A Barrier or a Resource? Organization, 31(3), pp. 547–566.
-
Katt, M. (2014). Blurred Lines: Cultural Support team in Afghanistan. Joint Force Quarterly. Retrieved from https://ndupress.ndu.edu/JFQ/Joint-Force-Quarterly-75/Article/577569/blurred-lines-cultural-support-teams-in-afghanistan/.
-
Kavanaugh, P. R. (2013). The Continuum of Sexual Violence: Women’s Accounts of Victimization in Urban Nightlife. Feminist Criminology, 8(1), pp. 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085112442979.
-
Khalili, L. (2011). Gendered Practices of Counterinsurgency. Review of International Studies, 37(4), pp. 1471–1491.
-
Khalili, L. (2013). Time in the Shadows: Confinement in Counterinsurgencies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
-
Konik, J., and Cortina, L. (2008). Policing Gender at Work: Intersections of Harassment Based on Sex and Sexuality. Social Justice Research, 21(3), pp. 313–337.
-
Kringen, A., and Novich, M. (2017). Is it ‘Just Hair’ or is it ‘Everything?’ Embodiment and Gender Repression in Policing. Gender, Work, & Organization, 25(2), pp. 195–213.
-
Lamont, M., and Molnár, V. (2002). The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, pp. 167–195.
-
Lofland, J., Snow, D., Anderson, L., and Lofland, L. (2006). Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
-
Lomsky-Feder, E., and Sasson-Levy, O. (2018). Women Soldiers and Citizenship in Israel: Gendered Encounters with the State. Routledge.
-
Martin, P. Y. (2003). ‘Said and Done’ Versus ‘Saying and Doing’—Gendering Practices, Practicing Gender at Work. Gender & Society, 17(3), pp. 342–366.
-
Martin, P. Y. (2004). Gender as Social Institution. Social Forces, 82(4), pp. 1249–1273.
-
Martin, S. E., and Jurik, N. (2007). Doing justice, Doing Gender: Women in Legal and Criminal Justice occupations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
-
McBride, K., and Wibben, A. (2012). The Gendering of Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism, and Development, 3(2), pp. 199–215.
-
McFarlane, M. D. (2021). Militarized Maternity: Experiencing Pregnancy in the U.S. Armed Forces. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
-
McKinney, K. (1992). Contrapower Sexual Harassment: The Effects of Student Sex and Type of Behavior on Faculty Perceptions. Sex Roles, 27(11–12), pp. 627–643.
-
Mesok, E. (2015). Affective Technologies of War: US Female Counterinsurgents and the Performance of Gendered Labor. Radical History Review, 2015(123), pp. 60–86.
-
Messerschmidt, J. W. (2018). Hegemonic Masculinity: Formulation, Reformulation, and Amplification. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
-
Mickey, E. L. (2019). When Gendered Logics Collide: Going Public and Restructuring in a High-tech Organization. Gender & Society, 33(4), pp. 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243219830944.
-
Miller, S. A. (2016). ‘How you Bully a Girl’: Sexual Drama and the Negotiation of Gendered Sexuality in High School. Gender & Society, 30(5), pp. 721–744. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243216664723.
-
Miller, J., and Brunson, R. (2000). Gender Dynamics in Youth Gangs: A Comparison of Males’ and Females’ Accounts. Justice Quarterly, 17(3), pp. 419–448.
-
National Museum of the Marine Corps. (n.d.). Female Engagement Teams—fet s. Retrieved from https://www.usmcmuseum.com/uploads/6/0/3/6/60364049/fets.pdf.
-
Pascoe, C. J. (2005). ‘Dude, You’re a Fag’: Adolescent Masculinity and the Fag Discourse. Sexualities, 8(3), pp. 329–346.
-
Pham, J. M. (2021). “Force Multipliers” and “Risk Multipliers:” Organizational Myth and Gender Integration of the U.S. Combat Arms Military Occupational Specialties and Units. The Sociological Quarterly, 64(1), pp. 46–66.
-
Plummer, C. (2023). Women in the Military Negotiating Work and Family Conflicts while Reproducing Gender Inequality. Scientia Moralitas International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 8(2), pp. 64–87.
-
Poland, B., and Pederson, A. (1998). Reading Between the Lines: Interpreting Silences in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 4(2), pp. 293–312.
-
Pottinger, M., Jilani, H., and Russo, C. (2010). Half-hearted: Trying to Win Afghanistan without Afghan Women. Small Wars Journal.
-
Prioletta, J., and Davies, A. W. (2024). Femmephobia in Kindergarten Education: Play Environments as Key Sites for the Early Devaluation of Femininity and care. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 25(2), pp. 256–270.
-
Prokos, A., and Padavic, I. (2002). ‘There Oughtta be a Law Against Bitches’: Masculinity Lessons in Police Academy Training. Gender, Work & Organization, 9(4), pp. 439–459.
-
Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
-
Ridgeway, C. L., and Correll, S. J. (2004). Motherhood as a Status Characteristic. Journal of Social Issues, 60(4), pp. 683–700.
-
Rubin, H. J., and Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
-
Sasson-Levy, O. (2003a). Military, Masculinity and Citizenship: Tensions and Contradictions in the Experience of Blue-collar soldiers’ Identities. Global Studies in Culture and Power, 10, pp. 319–345.
-
Sasson-Levy, O. (2003b). Feminism and Military Gender Practices: Israeli Women Soldiers in “Masculine” Roles. Sociological Inquiry, 73(3), pp. 440–465.
-
Sasson-Levy, O. (2011). The Military in a Globalized Environment: Perpetuating an ‘Extremely Gendered’ Organization. In: E. Jeanes, D. Knights, and P. Y. Martin (Eds.), Handbook of Gender, Work, and Organization, Wiley-Blackwell.
-
Schippers, M. (2007). Recovering the Feminine Others: Masculinity, Femininity, and Gender Hegemony. Theory and Society, 36(1), pp. 85–102.
-
Schrock, D., and Schwalbe, M. (2009). Men, Masculinity, and Manhood Acts. Annual Review of Sociology, 35(1), pp. 277–295.
-
Schwalbe, M., Godwin, S., Holden, D., Schrock, D., Thompson, S., and Wolkomir, M. (2000). Generic Processes in the Reproduction of Inequality: An Interactions Analysis. Social Forces, 79, pp. 419–452.
-
Simon, S. (2024). Essentialized Utility: Organizational Adaptation to Diversity Initiatives. Gender & Society, 38(1), pp. 33–59.
-
Small, M. L., and Calarco, J. M. C. (2022). Qualitative Literacy: A Guide to Evaluating Ethnographic Interview Research. University of California Press.
-
Snow, D., and Anderson, L. (1987). Identity Work Among the Homeless: The Verbal Construction and Avowal of Personal Identities. American Journal of Sociology, 92, pp. 1336–1371.
-
Steidl, C., and Brookshire, A. (2018). “Just One of the Guys Until Shower Time”: How Symbolic Embodiment Threatens Women’s Inclusion in the US Military. Gender, Work, and Organization, 25(5), pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12217.
-
Stets, J. E., and Burke, P. J. (2005). Identity Verification, Control, and Aggression in Marriage. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(2), pp. 160–178.
-
Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
-
Sue, C. A. (2015). Hegemony and Silence: Confronting State-sponsored Silences in the Field. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 44(1), pp. 113–140.
-
Sumerau, J. E. (2020). Violent Manhood. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
-
Taber, N. (2011). ‘You Better Not Get Pregnant While You’re here’: Tensions Between Masculinities and Femininities in Military Communities of Practice. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 30(3), pp. 331–348.
-
Texeira, M. (2002). “Who Protects and Serves Me?”: A Case Study of Sexual Harassment of African American Women in one U.S. Law Enforcement Agency. Gender & Society, 16(4), pp. 524–545.
-
Timmermans, S., and Tavory, I. (2012). Theory Construction in Qualitative Research: From Grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), pp. 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914.
-
Vaccaro, C. A. (2011). Male Bodies in Manhood Acts: The Role of Body-talk and Embodied Practice in Signifying Culturally Dominant Notions of Manhood. Sociology Compass, 5(1), pp. 65–76.
-
Vallance, R. J. (2001). Gaining Access: Introducing Referred Approval. Issues in Educational Research, 11(2), pp. 65–73.
-
West, C., and Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing Gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), pp. 125–151.
-
Wibben, A., and McBride, K. (2012). Counterinsurgency and Gender: The Case of the Female Engagement Teams. E-International Relations.
-
Williams, J. C. (2000). Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do About It. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
-
Williams, C. L., Muller, C., and Kilanski, K. (2012). Gendered Organizations in the New Economy. Gender & Society, 26(4), pp. 549–573.
-
Winslow, D., and Dunn, J. (2002). Women in the Canadian Forces: Between Legal and Social Integration. Current Sociology, 50(5), pp. 641–667.
-
Woodward, R., and Winter, P. (2004). Discourses of Gender in the Contemporary British Army. Armed Forces & Society, 30(2), pp. 279–301.
-
Yoder, J. D. (1991). Rethinking Tokenism: Looking Beyond Numbers. Gender & Society, 5(2), pp. 178–192.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 413 | 413 | 231 |
| Full Text Views | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 13 | 13 | 2 |
Sacrificing the Feminine to Fit In and Embracing the Feminine to Stand Out
Servicewomen’s Response to the Essentialist Gendered Practices of the U.S. Military
In: Journal of FemininitiesSearch for other papers by Stephanie Bonnes in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
Using in-depth interviews with 50 U.S. servicewomen, this study explores how institutional values, peer surveillance, and social control in the form of harassment function to devalue and regulate femininity in the military space. In a context that takes an essentialist view of gender that conflates femininity with weakness and assumes the ideal servicemember is masculine, many servicewomen respond by sacrificing femininity to avoid workplace harassment and to try to fit in. Women not only suppress feminine identity markers but also engage in defensive othering and posturing against other servicemembers perceived as more feminine to distance themselves further from femininity, reinforcing the gender binary. Further, this study uses interviews with women who served on Female Engagement Teams (fet) and Lioness Teams to highlight additional organizational meanings around femininity. While these programs were framed by the military as humanitarian in nature, fet and Lioness team members used essentialist views of gender to claim their femininity made them superior at intelligence-gathering, counterinsurgency, and combat missions. While this enables them to contest the masculine ideal of a servicemember, it ultimately leaves the gender binary intact. Overall, the military’s adherence to gender essentialism, coupled with a femmephobic environment, functions to regulate femininity in ways that uphold both the gender binary and a hierarchy that privileges masculinity over femininity.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 413 | 413 | 231 |
| Full Text Views | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 13 | 13 | 2 |