Locating Feminist Progress in Professional Military Education

Abstract

A continuing debate in feminist scholarship on gender, security, and the military has been whether militaries can facilitate feminist progress and be forces for good. Feminists committed to working outside of militaries note that gender perspectives have often been used to advance the military’s goals of winning wars rather than commitments to feminist social transformation of military institutions and societies. However, influences from international normative frameworks on Women, Peace and Security; Canada’s feminist foreign policy; and an emphasis on diversity and inclusion within Canada’s Defence Policy have presented the Canadian Armed Forces with a solid platform from which it has begun to make change. The central tenets of this broad feminist platform have begun to permeate Canadian Professional Military Education (PME) through the collective efforts of educators, staff, and military students at Canada’s defence colleges. Drawing on a review of policy and programmes as well as a qualitative analysis of interviews with educators, staff, and military students, the article demonstrates that feminist transformational change by military members is possible by exploring its nascent reality. The article highlights the challenges and benefits of incorporating feminist perspectives in Canadian PME and demonstrates how and under what conditions military graduates with this education have begun to apply gender and cultural learning to make local feminist interventions both within and outside their institution. Ultimately, this research shows that collective efforts toward localized and incremental changes by military members are paving the way for meaningful feminist progress within the military.

Employment equity groups’ experience of inclusion and commitment to the CAF

“…The number of marginalized identities predicted all of the inclusion measures (relatedness, microaggressions, and organizational inclusion). Traditionally, qualitative research (e.g., Brown, 2020 ; George, 2020 ; Biskupski-Mujanovic, 2022 ) has more fully documented intersectional experiences than quantitative research ( Watkins et al, 2019 ), although some quantitative intersectional research has documented the experiences of racialized women ( Mor Barak et al, 1998 ; Smith & Calasanti, 2005 ). It has traditionally been more difficult to reflect intersectional experiences using quantitative research, as members of non-dominant groups are less represented in the workforce, and therefore, fewer members of these groups complete surveys.…”

“…Qualitative research with CAF members suggests that the military culture prioritizes some identities over others. For example, Brown (2020) found that senior officer professional training prioritized masculinity, whiteness, heterosexuality, and combat warrior identities, and George’s (2020) interviews with racialized women in or retired from the CAF revealed that the military warrior is socially constructed as stereotypically male, based on a “white settler” mythology, and excludes those outside of the masculine warrior norm (i.e., women), Indigenous Peoples, and racialized Canadians. When some identities are privileged over others in the workplace, members of non-dominant groups feel less included than majority group members ( Cheeks and Yancey, 2022 ).…”

Contending with Paradox: Feminist Investments in Gender Training

“…A number of accounts in this field hold that transformative change is yet possible because, while current practices leave much to be desired, they nonetheless "open doors" (Deiana and McDonagh 2018, 46) for further engagement, providing feminist "footholds" in these institutions (Otto 2014, 157). Indeed, some accounts of gender-training initiatives make a hopeful case that institutional transformation is beginning (see, e.g., Brown 2020). The belief in the perfectibility of current efforts is communicated through analyses that posit that progress is not linear and systematic or that weigh the relative costs of co-optation against steps toward transformation (de Jong and Kimm 2017, 191-93;Deiana and McDonagh 2018, 47).…”