Fighting Stereotypes

• Author: Julie Collins-Dogrul,Jaimis Rebecca Ulrich
• DOI: 10.1177/0095327X17715650
• Published date: 01 July 2018
• Date: 01 July 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Fighting Stereotypes:

Public Discourse About

Women in Combat

Julie Collins-Dogrul

1

and Jaimis Rebecca Ulrich

1

Abstract

This study examines reader responses to opinion editorials about women in combat

and contributes to the literature on women in the military by explaining how

contests over sex–gender essentialism and diversity underlie public debates about

individual rights and military effectiveness. Comments in favor of women’s ground

combat exclusion use a logic of averages to promote essentialist thinking about men

and women. They categorize women as inferior soldiers and argue that deseg-

regation puts individual soldiers and the nation at risk. Conversely, comments in

favor of integration advance a view of sex–gender diversity that places men and

women along a continuum with overlapping qualities, suggesting further that giving

exceptional women the freedom to serve in ground combat will advance both

equality and military readiness. We argue that public commentary about women in

combat concerns more than the military, underlying this discourse are distinct

conceptions and expectations of men and women.

Keywords

gender, military, work, segregation, inequality, combat

In 1994, the U.S. Secretary of Defense prohibited women from serving in ground

combat roles, ensuring sex segregation in some occupations and positions in the

military services. In 2013, the Secretar y of Defense rescinded the ban, and full

implementation was confirmed in 2016. Scholars disagree about whether access

1

Whittier College, Whittier, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Julie Collins-Dogrul, Whittier College, 13406 Philadelphia, Whittier, CA 90608, USA.

Email: jcollins@whittier.edu

Armed Forces & Society

2018, Vol. 44(3) 436-459

ªThe Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0095327X17715650

journals.sagepub.com/home/afs

to ground combat roles will improve women’s experiences (King, 2015) or do little

to challenge entrenched, sex–gender inequalities (MacKenzie, 2015). A majority of

the public think desegregation will make opportunities for women in the military

better, but more than 1 out of 10 worry that women serving in ground combat will

harm military effectiveness, and one fourth believe women should be prohibited

from ground combat completely (Pew Research Center, 2013). We analyze online

reader comments written in response to opinion editorials about lifting the ban on

women in ground combat roles. Our findings contribute to the literature on public

attitudes about women in the military in two primary ways: First, we find that the

women’s rights and military effectiveness themes that scholars identified decades

ago persist (Peach, 1994; Segal & Hansen, 1992); second, we identify and explain

the sex–gender ideological and logical frameworks that underlie these themes.

Those who support segregation promote a sex–gender essentialist ideology that

depends on a logic of averages. They view women as a class of people that have

inferior warrior skills and argue that women in combat will reduce military effec-

tiveness and result in more dead and wounded soldiers. Those who support integra-

tion promote a sex–gender diversity ideology, with a logic of distribution where

abilities, regardless of sex, fall on a continuum. Supporters of ground combat inte-

gration argue that desegregation strengthens the nation’s military readiness while

simultaneously advancing military and democratic ideals.

The article proceeds as follows. The literature review synthesizes research on

public attitudes about women in the military and explains how sociological strati-

fication theories shed light on debates about sex–gender inequality in the armed

forces literature. The method section details our procedures and explains the utility

of using public discussions in online newspaper forums to flesh out the ideologies

and logics that underlie public opinion. In the Results section, we present the com-

peting essentialist and diversity sex–gender frameworks that we argue underlie

public discussions of “average” men and “exceptional” women and show how these

frameworks shape perceptions of the potential consequences of desegregation, spe-

cifically military effectiveness, the dangers of war, and selective service obligations.

Literature Review

There is extensive research on women in the military. Early groundbreaking efforts,

like the scholarship presented in Goldman’ s (1982) edited volume, documented

historical and international cases of female soldiers as well as debates about whether

women in combat improve or harm military effectiveness. Other pioneering scholars

advanced theories that identified and explained how particular social and institu-

tional changes in the armed forces, and in society, can increase female participation

and integration (Moskos, 1988; Segal, 1995). In this literature review, we present

research on public attitudes about women in the military and then synthesize socio-

logical theories of social stratification and research on sex–gender inequality in the

armed forces. This dual strategy is useful, as our research analyzes public

Collins-Dogrul and Ulrich 437