|
COPYRIGHT 1998 Transaction Publishers, Inc.
Military Women and Historical Amnesia
In 1946, Margaret Chase Smith, impatient with the House Military Affairs Committee, basically told them to "put up or shut up."(1) More recently the Army's top enlisted man was on trial for sexual harassment and assault; Congress is studying integrated military training; the Armed Services are reviewing two other recent reports on integrated training; the first women to command surface combat ships are preparing for their assignments to the fleet; and well known columnists write in opposition to women's integration and blame them for many military ills including lack of readiness and aircraft crashes.(2) The integration of women into our armed forces has been debated for over fifty years on an almost daily basis. At the same time, these debates remain largely uninformed by historical evidence of both women's military service and that more than fifty years of debate. Historicizing the debate on the integration of women into the American military since the 1940s should not only inform current debates on the roles of servicewomen and the conditions of their service,(3) but it should also inform intersecting policy debates about other marginalized groups. These debates must move away from the particulars of conditions of service and the inclusion of specific groups to the fundamental issues of citizenship and military obligation in a democratic society. If we are to have rational policy in this arena, an analysis of the changing nature of international relations and conflict must be included as well.
But how can we historicize the debate on military women? The assumption has been that there is little in the history books that either includes women or focuses on them. This has been especially true for military histories, even more so for military women. I would agree that much more must be done to recover the past in order to make the story whole. Equally essential though, beyond recovery and inclusion, is further analysis of the ways gender as a category and cultural definitions of social roles function in policy and institutions.
Some have proposed that the debate on the integration of military women has been redundant partly because these women, and the debate itself, were obscured from the public view. They suggest that since much of the debate had taken place in the halls of Congress and the offices of the Pentagon the public was not aware of much of it. Instead, evidence in print media shows that there really was a wealth of information in the popular press about both military women and the debate. The sheer amount of evidence available should call into question any plea of ignorance or lack of awareness of the historical record about women's military participation, about the recurring discussions on their inclusion, or about the unequal conditions of women's service.(4)
If military women and debates about them have been in the public view, why did people appear to be so surprised at the numbers of women shown participating in Desert Storm in 1991 or to be unaware that the Air Force has had gender integrated basic training for several decades? What made military women so forgettable, and what stalled the debates about their full inclusion on every specific point of conditions for their service? Why was their service not debated in terms of the fundamental relationship between citizenship and military obligations in a democratic society?
The military has always needed women in at least some capacity, but in the period during and after World War II the issue was "contained" by framing women's service as temporary and emergency, by generally confining them in feminized jobs, and by imposing gender-specific restrictions on their service.(5) Press accounts presented both military women and the debate around them to the public but emphasized trivialities, objectified the women, or made servicewomen the butt of gendered jokes. This all "camouflaged" the real achievements and contributions of women as well as the unequal restrictions both on their participation and on their benefits.(6)
These problematic presentations were meant to allay assumed public anxiety around gender roles. In turn, these assumed anxieties encouraged press accounts and military restrictions to be constructed in a way that contained military women within traditional notions of femininity, heterosexuality, and morality. This double confinement sharply constricted debate. Still, the fact that women's participation at risk of harm, capture, and death was visible to the public and the fact that the military, on the basis of need, had repeatedly adjusted standards and restrictions on women and minorities, shows that cultural ideology around gender roles was contested terrain. Possibilities for challenges did exist just as these challenges were being posed in civilian society. Media presentation and military policies interacted to mask the fact that women's citizenship was at issue, that changes in social relations were occurring, and that changes in these relations were necessary. The synergism of press representations of military women, and the historical amnesia engendered by the manner in which those presentations functioned, confined the debate to trivialities and visceral responses rather than opening it to discussions of the core issue of the meanings of citizenship.
Evidence shows, in fact, that the media reported extensively on women in non-traditional fields including the most non-traditional, the military. It also shows that assumptions about the responsibilities and rights of female citizens were contested in both civilian and military arenas. Finally, it shows that changes were necessary both in the interest of military effectiveness and national defense, and most importantly, in the interest of actually subscribing to the rhetoric of our democratic political philosophy. Spaces for this discourse were present in media presentations of: (1) military women's presence, performance, and experiences; (2) changing military standards and "social experimentation" based on military needs; (3) conversions of opponents; (4) debates over civilian women's rights and responsibilities; (5) civil rights debates; and (6) foreign women in non-traditional spaces, in wars, and in militaries. It is nothing new to point out that spaces existed for challenges showing that gender ideology was not concrete. It had to be malleable enough to compensate for political and social changes over time. Its very elasticity created opportunities for challenges to patriarchal ideology and structures. The history of those challenges is important to the present debates.
The History of the Debate
During World War II the initial induction of women was challenged over whether the military really needed more people, whether they should be an official part of the services, and whether they could do military jobs. Opponents argued that while women might be needed they could better serve as non-military volunteers - militarized women would be too expensive and not very effective. More visceral resisters posited that women would not be able to accept military discipline and that inducting women would "masculinize" them and damage American culture. By 1943, rather than a focus on masculinization, the press and public were concerned with rumors of loose morals. The press sensationalized the "Scandal Campaign," and some writers and reporters used it to smear the reputations of military women.(7) Senior government and military leaders battled against rumors of immorality by insisting on servicewomen's non-sexual femininity and high moral standards. At the same time, leaders waged a battle to integrate women more fully into the Army (changing the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps to the Women's Army Corps) and to recruit the higher numbers being requested by commanders in the field.(8) Many senior officers, initially resistant to working with women, had been converted by the capabilities and dedication they demonstrated. Still, what should have been an easy fight turned into a tough struggle. This despite the Navy's example of female integration in the WAVES (Women Accepted for Voluntary Emergency Service) who were not auxiliaries like the WAACs, and by military commanders insisting that they not only needed more women, but also needed more control over them and to offer them more equitable status. In addition, servicewomen and recruiters insisted that, as auxiliaries, women lacked military and government support and GI acceptance, were discriminated against in pay and benefits, and were constrained from fully utilizing their talents for the war effort. In fact, recruiting efforts for the WAC floundered because of the association of the WAAC with the 1943 scandal and these other concerns.
The battle against the Scandal Campaign was eventually won with high level support from the President and First Lady as well as from the most senior military leaders. But, according to WAAC/WAC historian Mattie Treadwell, the straggle still skewed the public view of women in the services, particularly in the Army. The episode further encouraged a standard component of the integration debate - the mythic, widespread immorality of military women. The public remembered sensational and titillating rumors longer than they remembered the crucial work women accomplished and the hardships they endured. In fact, the ugly rumors grew bigger and influenced recruiting even through the 1970s and beyond.
By 1944, when women had proven themselves to be effective members of the services which needed even more manpower, the military and government prepared to violate gender ideology to the furthest extent by conscripting women. Despite manpower needs and allied examples, resisters vehemently opposed a female draft. Supporters either framed the measure as just another emergency sacrifice to be coded as "feminine" (defending the home), or posited that the service obligation should be shared equally by all citizens. Others who supported the idea of drafting women disagreed with the plan to limit conscription to nurses. They argued that a draft that set apart a specific group of women was inherently unfair - most did not think a male-only draft problematic. By the time it looked as if the debate would be resolved in favor of drafting nurses (at least), positive developments on the battlefield diminished the need for more medical personnel so Congress and the military set aside the draft discussion.
Just before the War's end, and up to the Korean conflict, the debate centered on whether to make a transition from temporary, emergency service to a permanent regular role for women in the armed forces.(9) The 1940s battles were waged again - on physical strength, biological "impairments" (including menstruation and menopause), emotional stability, masculinization, and the destruction of American culture. At the time, the whole nation was anxious for a rest from war and soldiers and sailors wanted to return home. This home was supposed to be a place where wives cooked dinner and mothers nurtured children. Despite generally aspiring to this ideal of domesticity, some women wanted or needed jobs and were not content to give up even small wartime economic gains and improvements in status. Some wanted careers and a few wanted military careers. The peacetime military saw utility in retaining some women for jobs that they had proven they could do better than men, jobs that they could do just as well, and jobs that had been feminized. Beyond these considerations, as the Cold War started, many people believed that the country might soon face a more extensive mobilization. If a confrontation did occur, supporters argued that they needed a nucleus of military women to build on in an emergency. They also suggested that during peacetime, "experimentation" in the jobs women could perform would save valuable time and critical resources in preparation for another crisis. Women were even included in some proposals for Universal Military Training/Service (UMT and UMS).
Even though Congress had reached a consensus by 1947 that a permanent nucleus of a women's corps and occupational experimentation might be worthwhile, not everyone was convinced the women needed to have regular status. Even with senior officer support, and having breezed through the Senate, legislation to regularize military women stalled in the House. Resisters offered...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
