Attitudes toward Expanding Roles for Navy Women at Sea

Abstract

This article explores the discourse and gendered constructions that surrounded the debates on expanding seagoing roles for women in the U.S. Navy between 1978 and 2000. By comparing arguments against the expansion of women's seagoing roles across multiple years, it is possible to assess whether the arguments about women's exclusion have essentially changed. The arguments against expanding women's roles were framed in the context of diminishing military effectiveness based on stereotypical notions of women's capabilities. The arguments in favor of expanding women's roles were also framed within the construct of military effectiveness, with an emphasis on equal citizenship responsibility and democratic values. These results show a consistency of discourse throughout the periods studied.

Gender and Military Contextual Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Aggression

“…In the Navy, operational stress from preparing for or performing the military mission is likely to be higher in male-dominated environments, because women are underrepresented shipboard and have historically been barred from submarine duty (Iskra, 2007). Furthermore, individual risk factors for IPA perpetration previously identified in the literature, such as negative childhood family environment, prior victimization/aggression, alcohol abuse, trait anger, and hostility toward the opposite sex (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2005;Parrott & Zeichner, 2003b;Stith & McMonigle, 2009) may be systematically overrepresented among personnel in higher-stress occupations.…”

Badass marines: Resistance practices against the introduction of women in the Dutch military

“…The military emphasizes the importance of social bonding based on “being similar.” Consequently those who differ from the white, heterosexual, male norm are seen as disrupting operational effectiveness. Regarding the integration of women, issues such as sexual attraction are considered to further undermine the social bond within units (Herbert, 1998; Iskra, 2007; Sasson‐Levy, 2003). The fourth and last main reason to resist the introduction of women in combat roles found in the literature is that it will lead to a loss of the military's “masculine allure” (Sasson‐Levy, 2003, p. 444) and that it disrupts the privilege of men (Goldstein, 2018) as soldiering and especially combat are so closely related to masculinity.…”

Public Attitudes on Transgender Military Service: The Role of Gender

“…Research on women serving in combat roles is consistent with these arguments. Indeed, opposition to women serving in combat roles was stronger among those who supported traditional gender roles (Iskra, 2007; Matthews et al, 2009; Young & Nauta, 2013). And as with attitudes toward LGB military service, men, conservatives, and more religious respondents were more likely to oppose women serving combat roles (Matthews et al, 2009; Segal, Kinzer, & Woelfel, 1977; Young & Nauta, 2013).…”