Sex Roles

, Volume 76, Issue 3–4, pp 236–249 | Cite as

Not a Woman, but a Soldier: Exploring Identity through Translocational Positionality

Original Article

Abstract

Recent debate over integrating women into U.S. military combat units presents an opportunity to examine the gender identities and experiences of women in the military. Here, we examine the context-dependent prominence of intersecting identities including work role and gender ascribed to female soldiers in Special Operations. Using a mixed methods approach, based on 28 focus groups with 198 soldiers and a survey conducted with 1701 men and 214 women, we argue that female soldiers’ experiences refute their male colleagues’ assumptions regarding their ability to serve in combat units. The experience of identity in the workplace is different for men and women because women experience fluidity in their identity depending on with whom they are interacting and where interactions occur, whereas men experience and understand gender identity as a fixed, static trait. Although women experience the fluidity of their gender identity based on context, their male colleagues remain oblivious to the contextual nature of gender identity while also maintaining their authority in policing the boundaries of gender in the military context. Our research adds nuance to literature on identity, demonstrating the fluctuating nature of ascribed identity, which shines light on the socially constructed, artificial barriers to women’s ascension in the workplace.

Keywords

Gender identity Workplace Integration Sexism Gender fluidity Military Translocational positionality 

References

  1. Acker, J. (1992). From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contemporary Sociology, 21(5), 565–569. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2075528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed, A. (2011). Belonging out of context: The intersection of place, networks and ethnic identity among retired British migrants living in the Costa Blanca. Journal of Identity and Migration Studies, 5(2), 2–19. Retrieved from http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/22803.Google Scholar
  3. Alison, M. (2004). Women as agents of political violence: Gendering security. Security Dialogue, 35(4), 447–463. doi:10.1177/0967010604049522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anthias, F. (2002). Where do I belong? Narrating collective identity and translocational positionality. Ethnicities, 2(4), 491–514. doi:10.1177/1468796802020040301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anthias, F. (2008). Thinking through the lens of translocational positionality: An intersectionality frame for understanding identity and belonging. Translocations: Migration and Social Change, 4(1), 5–20. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10552/3331.Google Scholar
  6. Anthias, F. (2012). Transnational mobilities, migration research and intersectionality. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 2(2), 102–110. doi:10.2478/v10202-011-0032-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bose, C. E. (2012). Intersectionality and global gender inequality. Gender & Society, 26(1), 67–72. doi:10.1177/0891243211426722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Britton, D. M. (2000). The epistemology of the gendered organization. Gender & Society, 14(3), 418–434. doi:10.1177/08912430001400300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burrelli, D. F. (2013). Women in combat: Issues for Congress. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  10. Calas, M. B., Ou, H., & Smircich, L. (2013). “Woman” on the move: Mobile subjectivities after intersectionality. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 32(8), 708–731. doi:10.1108/EDI-05-2012-0037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cohn, C. (2000). ‘How can she claim equal rights when she doesn’t have to do as many push up as I do?’ The framing of men’s opposition to women’s equality in the military. Men & Masculinities, 3(2), 131–151. doi:10.1177/1097184X00003002001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Courdileone, K. A. (2005). Manhood and American political culture in the cold war. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Devilbiss, M. C. (1990). Women and military service: A history, Analysis, and overview of key issues. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a229958.pdf.
  16. Duncanson, C. (2009). Forces for good? Narratives of military masculinity in peacekeeping operations. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 11(1), 63–80. doi:10.1080/14616740802567808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elshtain, J. B. (1987). Women & war. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  18. Enloe, C. (1983). Does khaki become you? The militarisation of women’s lives. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  19. Feitz, L., & Nagel, J. (2008). The militarization of gender and sexuality in the Iraq War. In H. Carreiras & G. Kummel (Eds.), Women in the military and in armed conflict (pp. 201–225). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferree, M. M. (2011). The discursive politics of feminist intersectionality. In H. Lutz, M. Vivar, & L. Supik (Eds.), Framing intersectionality: Debates on a multi-faceted concept in gender studies (pp. 55–65). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Goldstein, J. S. (2001). War and gender: How gender shapes the war system and vice versa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Herbert, M. S. (2000). Camouflage isn’t only for combat: Gender, sexuality, and women in the military. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  23. Herrera, G. (2013). Gender and international migration: Contributions and cross-fertilizations. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 471–489. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hesse-Biber, S. (2016). Qualitative or mixed methods research inquiry approaches: Some loose guidelines for publishing in Sex Roles. Sex Roles, 74(1), 6–9. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0568-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holm, J. (1992). Women in the military: An unfinished revolution. Novato: Presidio Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ifekwunigwe, J. O. (2016). The difference that transnational and intersectional black feminisms make: A commentary on Tripp. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 4(2), 335–340. doi:10.1080/21565503.2015.1127830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kennan, J. O. (2008). The DoD combat exclusion policy: Time for a change? In M. M. Putko & D. V. Johnson (Eds.), Women in Combat Compendium (pp. 21–25). Washington, DC: Strategic Studies Institute. Retrieved from http://wiisglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Women-in-Combat-Compendium1.pdf.Google Scholar
  28. Kimmel, M. (2000). Saving the males: The sociological implications of the Virginia military institute and the citadel. Gender & Society, 14(4), 494–516. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/190299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morden, B. J. (1990). The women’s Army corps, 19451978. Washington, DC: Center of Military History, United States Army.Google Scholar
  30. Nantais, C., & Lee, M. F. (1999). Women in the United States military: Protectors or protected? The case of prisoner of war Melissa Rathbun-Nealy. Journal of Gender Studies, 8(2), 181–191. doi:10.1080/095892399102698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nash, J. C. (2008). Re-thinking intersectionality. Feminist Review, 89(1), 1–15. doi:10.1057/fr.2008.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Parashar, S. (2009). Feminist international relations and women militants: Case studies from Sri Lanka and Kashmir. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22(2), 235–256. doi:10.1080/09557570902877968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Patten, E., & Parker, K. (2011). Women in the US military: Growing share, distinctive profile. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from file:///Users/s522p292/Downloads/women-in-the-military.pdf.Google Scholar
  34. Purkayastha, B. (2010). Interrogating intersectionality: Contemporary globalisation and racialised gendering in the lives of highly educated south Asian Americans and their children. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 31(1), 29–47. doi:10.1080/07256860903477696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Santangelo, S. (2014, March 28). Fourteen women have tried, and failed, the Marines’ Infantry Officer Course: Here’s why. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fourteen-women-have-tried-and-failed-the-marines-infantry-officer-course-heres-why/2014/03/28/24a83ea0-b145-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html.
  36. Sasson-Levy, O. (2003). Feminism and military gender practices: Israeli women soldiers in ‘masculine’ roles. Sociological Inquiry, 73(3), 440–465. doi:10.1111/1475-682X.00064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sasson-Levy, O., & Amram-Katz, S. (2007). Gender integration in Israeli officer training: Degendering and regendering the military. Signs, 33(1), 105–133. doi:10.1086/518262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sheppard, C. (2007). Women in combat. Carlisle Barracks: Army War College.Google Scholar
  39. Skaine, R. (1999). Women at war: Gender issues of Americans in combat. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc..Google Scholar
  40. Stack-O’Connor, A. (2007). Lions, tiger, and freedom birds: How and why Liberation Tigers of Tamil employs women. Terrorism and Political Violence, 19(1), 43–63. doi:10.1080/09546550601054642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Washington Times. (2005, July 11). Iraq lacks women trained in security. Washington Times. Retrieved from http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050711-122346-9856r.htm.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public Affairs & AdministrationUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations