Conceptualizing the Tensions Evoked by Gender Integration in the Military

Abstract

The South African military has adopted an assertive affirmative action campaign to ensure that women are represented across all ranks and branches. This has brought about new tensions in terms of gender integration, related to issues of equal opportunities and meritocracy as well as the accommodation of gender difference and alternative values. The argument is made that the management of gender integration from a gender-neutral perspective cannot bring about gender equality, as it obliges women to conform to and assimilate masculine traits. This affects women’s ability to function as equals, especially where feminine traits are not valued, where militarized masculinities are privileged and where women are othered in ways that contribute to their subordination. Under such conditions, it is exceedingly difficult for women to bring about a more androgynous military culture espoused by gender mainstreaming initiatives and necessary for the type of missions military personnel are engaged in today.

Regendering the South African army: Inclusion, reversal and displacement

“…Can long enshrined and discriminatory gender norms be transformed to the point where the binary between ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ is blurred and the army becomes regendered? In this article we examine the extent to which the participation of women in the military furthers or hinders the displacement of gendered dichotomies in the South African military and as such contributes to the ongoing debate about gender, women and the military (Cohn, , ; Duncanson & Woodward, ; Goldstein, ; Heinecken, ; Kronsell, ; MacKenzie, ; Simic, ).…”

“…Simplifying the debate, it revolves around two different lines of reasoning: one emphasizing gender neutrality and women's rights, where women's equality with men is underlined, and another more instrumentalist reasoning which emphasizes gender difference, arguing that women can contribute something unique to the military because of their gender, thereby making the military more diverse (Heinecken, ). While both strands have generated an impressive amount of literature and debate, critics claim that none of these strategies actually can alter the military's masculine culture.…”

“…While both strands have generated an impressive amount of literature and debate, critics claim that none of these strategies actually can alter the military's masculine culture. On the one hand, women who are supposed to be included as ‘equals’ are forced to accept, integrate and adopt masculinity norms, while women who are expected to bring ‘diversity’ to the army with their gender, risk being trapped in an essentialist discourse which ultimately oppresses or undermines them (Duncanson & Woodward, ; Eduards, , p. 59; Heinecken, ; Simic, , pp. 194, 196).…”

“…To achieve such a transformation of the military, it is essential to not only emphasize the diversity that women bring with them, thus picking up one strand from the previous debate, but also to increase the number of women in the army so that women's bodies disrupt the dominant, masculine norms (Duncanson & Woodward, ). This would bring about a more androgynous military culture, which is more suited to the type of missions that soldiers deploy in today (Heinecken, ). Ultimately it could achieve a transformation of the military to produce an inclusive, democratic and regendered military (Duncanson & Woodward, ).…”

“…Thirdly, there has been an assertive affirmative action campaign to improve gender representation across all ranks and branches. Accordingly, the SANDF has committed to increase the recruitment of women to 40 per cent, and to 30 per cent overall representation (Heinecken, , p. 204). While this goal has not yet been reached, the fact that women represent almost a quarter of the full‐time uniformed forces leads one to assume that they represent a sufficient critical mass of women to disrupt the dominant masculine military culture.…”