Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Gender in the military
Gender in the military
Gender Role In The Military
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Gender in the military
Gendered roles and behaviours in peacetime bare greater flexibility, however, through times of war more traditionalist conventions such as men serving as the protector and women as the caretakers are further reinforced. This essay will firstly discuss the difference between sex and gender. Secondly, it will explore these roles and behaviours during peacetime, as under more relaxed and peaceful circumstances, defined barriers of social norms and conventions apparent in wartime, are not as clear. It will then contrast feminine and masculine roles during wartime with a focus on the Bosnian War. Using the Bosnian War, this essay will exemplify that when a state is threatened by another state, a government will seek to take control of its citizens, influencing and reinforcing these wartime gender roles and behaviours (Mostov 1995). Consequently, this essay will discuss how a males perceived role in war is transformed, for example, how they feel the pressure to appear overtly masculine through supressing the opposition. This is in contrast to a woman’s role in battle, for example, the Bosnian government encouraging women to being the caretakers, having children to serve for the nation. Through the example of the Bosnian War, this essay will examine how a gender crisis emerges as the men feel emasculated as they don’t fulfil their gender roles (Bracewell 2000 pg 577). The men feel threatened by the women, as they are not full filling their duty of protecting not only the nation, but their wives from the enemy. Gender crisis will be explored through the example of the Bosnian war and how the men moved to reassert their power through rape. Rape was an attempt by the men to strengthen their masculinity and power and to humiliate the enemy t...
... middle of paper ...
...tistical Overview of Women in the Workplace. New York: Catalyst, March 3, 2014. http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/statistical-overview-women-workplace#footnote6_1l423ku War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa Author: Joshua S. Goldstein
Publisher: Cambridge University Press, New York, 2003. [Paperback] Published in 2003
Reviewed by: Gazala Paul, Managing Trustee, Samerth Trust (Working for Peace and Reconciliation), Gujarat, India
1. William Broyles Jr., "Why Men Love War," (1-10) Esquire, November 1984
2. Barbara Ehrenreich, “Men Hate War Too,” (118-122)
Special Topic:Gender Roles in Wartime and Peacetime
1840:485/585:802
Spring Semester 2008
Paula Maggio
Assistant Lecturer
Women’s Studies Program
The University of Akron
Akron, Ohio
Source: K. Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1977
The article by Laura McEnaney titled Gender Analysis and Foreign Relations is an interesting article focused on a relatively new type of analysis that offers another angle in the world of policymaking. The diplomatic historians who use gender analysis use it in addition to the customary methodologies of the historian to enhance the historian’s studies. Gender analysis has inspired new investigations in the history of men and women and diplomacy, giving way to a new type of understanding of power in a historical context; however gender analysis “enters diplomatic history only through the aegis of culture.”
War has been a mainstay of human civilization since its inception thousands of years ago, and throughout this long and colorful history, warriors have almost exclusively been male. By repeatedly taking on the fundamentally aggressive and violent role of soldier, Man has slowly come to define Himself through these violent experiences. Although modern American society regulates the experiences associated with engaging in warfare to a select group of individuals, leaving the majority of the American public emotionally and personally distant from war, mainstream American masculinity still draws heavily upon the characteristically male experience of going to war. In modern American society, masculinity is still defined and expressed through analogy with the behavior and experiences of men at war; however, such a simplistic masculinity cannot account for the depth of human experience embraced by a modern man.
Both Deborah Blum’s The Gender Blur: Where Does Biology End and Society Take Over? and Aaron Devor’s “Gender Role Behaviors and Attitudes” challenges the concept of how gender behavior is socially constructed. Blum resides on the idea that gender behavior is developed mainly through adolescence and societal expectations of a gender. Based on reference from personal experiences to back her argument up, Blum explains that each individual develops their expected traits as they grow up, while she also claims that genes and testosterones also play a role into establishing the differentiation of gender behavior. Whereas, Devor focuses mainly on the idea that gender behavior is portrayed mainly among two different categories: masculinity and femininity, the expectation that society has put upon male and female disregarding any biological traits. Furthermore, both could agree with the idea that society has an effect on how an individual should act based on their gender. Yet, additionally Devor would most likely disagree with Blum regarding the assumption that a biological factor is involved in this following case, but I reside on Blum’s case. Although society is indeed one of the major contributions as to how one should act, as Devor states, biology is somewhat like a foundation that leads to how one should behave as they grow and acknowledge their gender difference as well, residing on Blum’s argument.
The problem of women fighting in combat along with their male counterparts is not a one-sided problem. Elizabeth Hoisington has earned the rank of Brigadier General in the U.S. Army, leads the Women’s Army Corps and believes that women should not serve in combat because they are not as physically, mentally, or emotionally qualified as a male is and that ...
Society places ideas concerning proper behaviors regarding gender roles. Over the years, I noticed that society's rules and expectations for men and women are very different. Men have standards and specific career goals that we must live up to according to how others judge.
The previous two paragraphs have outlined how rape as a weapon can be used to reinforce the masculinity of an armed force in several ways and the dominance of that force by relegating the opposing force to the feminine (Enole, 1998). This section of the essay will outline how this ideas come together to result in a political strategy (Buss, 20009, p.149). Rape in this context serves to achieve the political goal of ethnic cleansing or genocide (Kirby, 2012,p.12). While this section is looking at nationalist war it is also important to note that rape is used in a weapon in interstate wars too (Wood, 2010, p.125 and Pankhurst, 2010, p.151). Also important to note, is that rape as a weapon is not used in all wars that have an ethnic
The male-dominated institution that is the U.S. military, through daily practice, has shown its implementing of hegemonic masculinity among ranks. As this institution relies on rigid masculine qualities, it feeds from the history of hyper-masculinity. Warfare and hegemonic masculinity go hand in hand, “for ages throughout countless societies the final initiation rite from boyhood to manhood has been an inclusion in the practice of war” (Morgan 125). Through this idea, “boys who aspire to manhood, and men seeking to express theirs, follow masculine scripts generated in and for particular milieus, but they must also negotiate their course in relation to the hegemonic forms of contemporary masculinity and femininity” (Nye 1940). This ideal of a strong and aggressive leader is emphasized through American war politics as well “where our major response to the indirect tactics of guerrilla warfare has been to rely upon more and bigger ‘strikes’ and ‘assaults’, despite all the evidence of their long-run ineffectiveness” (Mansfield 351). Essentially this idea that to prove oneself through the strength and refusal to retreat, regardless of the effectiveness of the strategy “seems to reflect a psychological reality” within the military: “to lose will be to unman us all” (Mansfield
Women have changed people`s ideas on war for the past two centuries of American history. “People are realizing females have contributed to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan,” stated Professor Megan Mackenzie (Harris 2). Although women are not fighting on the front lines, they help in many different ways in the military such as being nurses and women Air force Service Pilots. In his career, General Martin Dempsey has noticed an improvement in the culture, discipline, and physical prowess since women first joined the military (Harris 2). Leon E. Panetta once stated that women are willing to fight and die alongside men, proving that everyone is committed to the job (Roulo 2). In November of 2012, four female soldiers planned to sue the Department of Defense because the “brass ceiling” was stopping them from proving they could fight (Harris 1). The American Civil Liberties Union and others supported them because they thought the military was discriminating against women (Harris 1). Women have shown that they are committed to helping though their contributions to past wars and battles in American history.
There are many different facets to the nature versus nurture argument that has been going on for decades. One of these, the influence of nature and nurture on gender roles and behaviors, is argued well by both Deborah Blum and Aaron Devor, both of whom believe that society plays a large role in determining gender. I, however, have a tendency to agree with Blum that biology and society both share responsibility for these behaviors. The real question is not whether gender expression is a result of nature or nurture, but how much of a role each of these plays.
“War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa” is a book written by Joshua S. Goldstein in 2001. Separation of gender roles is more than considerable issue for modern society. On this basis, with no doubts, understanding of gender roles can not be more important than in time of war. Considering numerous researches, continuous and contentious debates author tried to reveal major factors concerning how gender roles influence war and vice versa. Joshua Goldstein presents lively and concrete assessment of the topic due to the nearly absolute women exclusion through the years of history and within different cultures.
However, this is not currently the case due to the atrocities inflicted on women and children in modern warfare. In ancient times women were looked at as innocent, even though they were thought of as weak. With that being said, women were always ultimately protected by men, who are known as worriers, and the females were the prize of the war. (Sjoberg, 2008) wrote, “The element of just war theory that many feminists note spans both times and culture is the image of women as the protected and the prize.” (Why Just War Needs Feminism Now More Than Ever, pg.4). Throughout history, conflicts and battles have revolved around or included saving females or the damsel in distress. Additionally, because patriarchy was a major root of the just theory, females were being excluded from being leaders or any means of having a voice. Men were deemed care givers, protectors, and rulers over the land, with women having little to no insights on any decision making. Women had little choice of decisions about their future, other than raising and taking care of children. “Rightfully”, men made all the choices and the decisions that affected the household. With that being said, women were giving the roles that they are categorized with, without asking for or voluntarily accepting these roles. In fact, they had no choice but to accept these roles that were forced onto them. (Sjoberg, 2008) wrote,
Since the beginning of time, society has implemented or prescribed defined characteristics that a man or woman need to have to meet social and cultural requirements. Through these gender roles our behavior, attitude and feelings are shaped and how our capabilities are limited or coerced. These traits make us either masculine or feminine; stereotypically manhood is affiliated with audacity, chauvinism and stoicism while womanhood is linked to submission, feebleness and sentiment.
In Women in the Military, Janette Mance explores the debates and problems faced by the increasing number of women involved in the military. After examining issues such as pregnancy, sexual harassment, and rape, Mance concludes that as a society we must continue to strive for gender equality.
Boom did you see her she caught a grenade but she is not supposed to be in the combat field. Women in the army that extends over 400 years into the past throughout a large amount of cultures and nations. Although women are not allowed in the combat field but they play an important role in the army. About 33,000 jobs of the positions in the army are closed to woman because they were units that were designated as direct ground combat. That will change this year in units that are not under army special operations. This paper will tell you how woman played an important in the army in the past and in the present.