The Bureaucratic Harassment of U.S. Servicewomen

Abstract

Focusing on the U.S. military as a gendered and raced institution and using 33 in-depth interviews with U.S. servicewomen, this study identifies tactics and consequences of workplace harassment that occur through administrative channels, a phenomenon I label bureaucratic harassment. I identify bureaucratic harassment as a force by which some servicemen harass, intimidate, and control individual, as well as groups of, servicewomen through bureaucratic channels. Examples include issuing minor infractions with the intention of delaying or stopping promotions, threatening to withhold military benefits for reporting sexual abuse/harassment, and revoking servicewomen’s qualifications in order to remove them from positions or units. The manipulation of administrative rules and regulations is made possible by the interplay between a gendered and raced organizational climate and bureaucratic features such as discretion, hierarchy, and the blending of work and personal life. I show that bureaucratic harassment has both raced and gendered implications. Ultimately, harassment that is enacted through bureaucratic means is often overlooked but carries distinct consequences for the professional careers and workplace experiences of the victims.

Balancing Research and Service in Academia: Gender, Race, and Laboratory Tasks

“…Minority women face racialized gender discrimination in medicine (Bhatt 2013) and in the tech industry (Alfrey and Twine 2017). Moreover, women of color are particularly vulnerable to bureaucratic harassment, described as harassment enacted through policies and administrative processes (Bonnes 2017), and they contend with organizational practices that reinforce racism, sexism, and classism and limit their opportunities for professional advancement (Garcia-López 2008). African-American men also face challenges in the workplace relative to their white male peers.…”

“…Our work is uniquely positioned to illuminate the role of intersectionality in organizations by examining four groups: minority women, minority men, white women, and white men. Previous intersectional studies have tended to focus on men and women of one race (Bhatt 2013; Griffin and Reddick 2011) or on women of different racial and/or ethnic groups (Alfrey and Twine 2017; Bonnes 2017; Garcia-López 2008). Although this research shows that women are disadvantaged within racial/ethnic groups and that racial/ethnic minorities are disadvantaged among both women and men, the position of white women (advantaged by race but disadvantaged by gender) and minority men (advantaged by gender but disadvantaged by race/ethnicity) is not clear.…”

“…Theory of gendered organizations offers insights into the embeddedness of gender divisions that reproduce gender inequality in workplaces but leaves open the question of how these processes may also be racialized. We build on the recent work on intersectionality in organizations (Alfrey and Twine 2017; Bhatt 2013; Bonnes 2017; Garcia-López 2008; Griffin and Reddick 2011) to examine the specific ways in which gendered and racialized processes jointly create a unique racial/gender hierarchy.…”

Just one of the guys until shower time: How symbolic embodiment threatens women's inclusion in the US military

“…Research on women in the military has also proliferated in recent decades. Much of this research has focused on challenges related to gender integration (Sasson-Levy & Amram-Katz, 2007;Titunik, 2000;Woodward & Winter, 2006) and sexual harassment (Bonnes, 2017;Miller, 1997;Titunik, 2000).…”

“…Assumptions about gender undergird both the structure and culture of the military, such that gender continues to shape career trajectories, and professional success is associated with performance of hegemonic masculinity (Barrett, 1996;Bonnes, 2017;Connell, 2005;Hale, 2011;Höpfl, 2003;Miller, 1997). Traditionally masculine qualities (e.g., aggressiveness, rationality, courage) and maleness are applauded while traditionally feminine qualities (e.g., cooperation, nurturing) and femaleness are devalued (Padavic & Reskin, 2002;Schilt, 2010;Williams, 1995).…”