Special Issue: Gender and the Candian Armed Forces Research

Locating Feminist Progress in Professional Military Education

Vanessa Brown is an assistant professor at the Dallaire benefits of incorporating feminist perspectives in Ca­ Centre of Excellence for Peace and Security within the nadian PME and demonstrates how and under what Canadian Defence Academy. She facilitates graduate conditions military graduates with this education have level learning in senior officer education programmes begun to apply gender and cultural learning to make offered by the Canadian Forces College. Vanessa local feminist interventions both within and outside teaches in the broad areas of military sociology, gender their institution. Ultimately, this research shows that and security, military leadership, operations, and collective efforts toward localized and incremental policy. Her graduate research and written work focus changes by military members are paving the way for on gender, intersectionality, and (in)security through meaningful feminist progress within the military. the domain of Professional Military Education and the institutional social dynamics of the Canadian Keywords: Canadian Armed Forces, feminist, gender, Armed Forces. intersectionality, leadership, military, Professional Mil­ itary Education Abstract: A continuing debate in feminist scholarship on gender, security, and the military has been whether e views expressed in this article are solely those of the militaries can facilitate feminist progress and be forces author. ey are not intended to reflect the views and for good. Feminists committed to working outside of values of the Department of National Defence or the Ca­ militaries note that gender perspectives have often nadian Armed Forces. is research was granted ethics been used to advance the military’s goals of winning approval by Carleton University Ethics Review Board, wars rather than commitments to feminist social which follows national standards for the conduct of re­ transformation of military institutions and societies. search involving human subjects outlined by the Tri­ However, influences from international normative Council Policy Statement. e research has also been ap­ frameworks on Women, Peace and Security; Canada’s proved through coordination with DGMPRA Social feminist foreign policy; and an emphasis on diversity Science Research Review Board, with the finding that the and inclusion within Canada’s Defence Policy have research falls under the programme evaluation category in presented the Canadian Armed Forces with a solid accordance with DAOD 5062­0 and 5062­1. platform from which it has begun to make change. e central tenets of this broad feminist platform have begun to permeate Canadian Professional Military Education (PME) through the collective efforts of educators, staff, and military students at Canada’s de­ fence colleges. Drawing on a review of policy and pro­ grammes as well as a qualitative analysis of interviews with educators, staff, and military students, the article demonstrates that feminist transformational change by military members is possible by exploring its nas­ cent reality. e article highlights the challenges and

Atlantis Journal Issue 41.2 / 2020 26 s a feminist anti­racist scholar researching the in­ have increasingly privileged militaries as primary act­ A tegration of gender and cultural perspectives in ors in the provision of peace and security (Kirby and the Professional Military Education (PME) of Cana­ Sheppard 2016). us, expecting the military to do dian military personnel, I have struggled intellectually this work without feminist engagements from within and personally with the possibility for transforma­ could result in militaries pushing feminist conceptions tional change within militaries as well as the potential of peace and security even further from feminist vis­ for militaries to be “forces for good” (Duncanson and ions. While some feminists choose to forgo relation­ Woodward 2016, 13). After all, militaries are sanc­ ships with the military altogether and focus attention tioned by states to apply lethal violence. eir mem­ on collaboration and advocacy with non­government­ bers are called upon to kill or be killed (Ibid.). al organizations and civil society groups (Cockburn Historically, military violence has served to uphold the 2011), other feminists argue that it is possible to shape world’s most oppressive socially constructed systems: the content and process of military engagements in patriarchy, colonialism, imperialism, and capitalism peace and security for good (Duncanson and Wood­ (Razack 2004). ese systems of oppression are noted ward 2016). to be reproduced in militaries including the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) through intense processes of mil­ Indeed, influences from international normative itary socialization (Whitworth 2005). On the other frameworks on peace and security, Canada’s Feminist hand, militaries have been used to end conflict, pro­ Foreign Policy (adopted in 2017 following Sweden’s tect civilians, and provide humanitarian aid and disas­ lead), and a focus on gender and diversity within ter response domestically and internationally. In the Canada’s Defence Team have created a solid platform process, militaries have been engaged in improving from which the CAF has begun to make change. e women’s social, political, economic, and legal condi­ Canadian military has committed to creating an in­ tions particularly through the implementation of the clusive culture where each member is treated with dig­ Women, Peace and Security agenda, a set of United nity and respect (Chief of Defence Staff 2009). It has Nations Security Council Resolutions aimed at also committed to applying gender perspectives and achieving gender equality and addressing the analyses in all mission plans and actions (Chief of De­ disproportionate impact of crises and conflict on fence Staff 2016b). But does this change within the women and girls (Kirby and Sheppard 2016). us, military indicate feminist progress? Drawing from re­ the military’s relationship to feminist progress is com­ search on transformational change within militaries as plicated. In view of this complicated relationship, well as findings from my PhD research, I provide a might militaries be capable of transforming the very “conceptual approach to understand how, and under systems of oppression they have traditionally helped to what circumstances, militaries can change” and sup­ develop and reproduce? port feminist progress (Duncanson and Woodward 2016, 11). Feminist progress in militaries could in­ e question of whether the military can be a force for clude work towards more equitable and inclusive good continues to present a significant dilemma for working conditions for women, men, and non­binary feminists. ere has been recurring debate on whether personnel with diverse ethnicities, languages, cultures, feminist scholars should work to intervene to trans­ gender identities, sexualities, and abilities. Feminist form the inner workings of militaries in hopes of mak­ progress through military engagements could mean ing feminist change from within (Duncanson and exploring the military’s role in the facilitation of Woodward 2016). Some feminists committed to gender equality in societies and pursuing ways and working outside of militaries note that feminist goals means to prevent violence against the most marginal­ of gender equality are often eclipsed by institutional ized groups in Canada, and societies abroad. More goals of operational effectiveness and winning wars broadly, feminist progress through military engage­ (Cockburn 2011). However, international organiza­ ment could mean working to understand how tions such as the United Nations (UN) as well as states policies, plans, and actions of the Canadian military

Atlantis Journal Issue 41.2 / 2020 27 could lead to inclusive security and enduring peace for education on the critical race, feminist, and intersec­ all people. tional theories behind Gender­based Analysis Plus (GBA+; described in greater detail below) is necessary I argue that feminist progress of this sort is possible for military professionals to fully understand how to with concerted efforts to support military professionals apply this tool. In addition, my research illuminates in learning about the root causes of social, political, how the incorporation of gender and cultural perspect­ and economic inequality in the military and societies, ives in curriculum helps military members to achieve and the military’s role in facilitating change. I posit the military’s commitments to the Women, Peace and that military members can be important agents for Security agenda (Chief of Defence Staff 2016b). is change when: they become aware of and work to con­ institutionally mandated feminist progress (Ibid.) re­ front masculinist institutional norms and oppressive quires the calibre of feminist training and education intersectional social orders (Razack 2004; Taber 2015); only made possible through the concerted efforts of they commit to a process of “regendering” to redefine military and civilian faculty and staff. the soldierly identity as inclusive of femininities, mas­ culinities, women, men, and non­binary people, as is article demonstrates that transformational change well as racialized, sexual, and linguistic diversity within the military is possible by empirically exploring (Duncanson and Woodward 2016); they reframe pro­ its nascent reality. In the first section, I build the case fessionalism around principles of recognition, equality, for this position by presenting feminist thinking on empathy, care, and respect (Ibid.); and they examine gender and security and the potential for militaries to and work to address inequalities within the military, facilitate transformational change. is presentation is domestically and internationally. followed by a review of feminist work in PME to in­ corporate gender and cultural perspectives in cur­ In this article, I show that the integration of gender riculum, to create inclusive learning environments, and and cultural perspectives within PME can help milit­ to apply feminist pedagogy. e next section describes ary members to achieve the institution’s goals of foster­ the qualitative ethnographic methods I employed to ing an inclusive military culture and facilitating collect data as well as my application of Critical Dis­ feminist objectives within the Women, Peace and Se­ course Analysis to interpret the data collected. e curity agenda in domestic and international engage­ remaining sections highlight findings on the impact of ments (Chief of Defence Staff 2016b). PME integrating feminist theory and frameworks in the programmes like the graduate level learning offered in PME of senior officers to feminist progress in the Ca­ the Joint Command and Staff Programme (JCSP) nadian military. Drawing from the narratives of re­ have promise precisely because they can include cur­ search participants, I explore how military riculum that helps to highlight the ways in which professionals have applied gender and cultural learning gender and intersectional inequalities are perpetuated to make local feminist interventions. Ultimately, I systemically, institutionally, and interpersonally. ese demonstrate that “what might seem like limited pro­ programmes can be mechanisms through which Cana­ gress, or superficial changes” made by military mem­ dian military personnel achieve greater awareness and bers could pave the way for meaningful feminist understanding about social inequalities outside of, but transformations (Duncanson and Woodward 2016, also within, the institution. Yet in their current form, 11). initiatives to integrate these perspectives in training and education have not been enough to create the in­ Feminist inking on Gender and Security: stitutionally desired critical thinking capacities in mil­ Towards Transformational Change itary members that are required to create culture change within the military and to facilitate gender Patriarchal societies—those in which social organiza­ equality domestically and internationally (Chief of tion upholds men’s normative and material control Defence Staff 2016b). As my research illuminates, over social, economic, and political power—ascribe in

Atlantis Journal Issue 41.2 / 2020 28 varying degrees to a two­sex system (Shildrick 1997). pursued recognition, justice, redistribution, and equal­ In a two­sex system, body parts, chemistry, and bodily ity. practices are constructed in hierarchical and binary ways that classify individuals into two distinct and A key insight from the field of feminist International differentially valued biological sexes—male and female Relations and feminist sociological theory is that war (De Beauvoir 1949). e physical materiality of bod­ and conflict are deeply gendered (Cockburn 2010; ies is grounded in what bodies essentially are and what Segal 2008). Oppressive gender dynamics are relational they essentially do (Butler 2007; Cook 2007). What is to power and struggle in and among societies. In many understood as socially innate to men and women, ways, gender is ritualized and normalized, and mas­ however, happens through myriad and historical pro­ culinity’s privileged status is continually performed and cesses of gender socialization to embody idealized ar­ legitimized through expressions of power, control, and chetypes of masculinity and femininity. ese dominance (Butler 2007). As such, patriarchal social narratives often include normalized and taken­for­ organization predisposes societies to the underlying granted conceptions of men as natural soldiers and antagonisms of conflict (Cockburn 2010). But gender leaders with the relational understanding of women as is not the only social system underlying conflict. requiring male leadership and protection (Elshtain Gender relations are interwoven with connecting and 1987). In this way, while sex is a biological category, mutually constituting systems of power such as racial­ gender is a social one. In the military, members are ization, imperialism, and coloniality (McClintock consistently engaged in the social process of aligning 1995; Razack 2004), sexuality (Duriesmith 2019; with institutionally idealized masculine characteristics Eriksson Baaz & Stern 2009; eweleit 1987), eco­ and norms associated with the soldierly identity. nomic factors and systems (Cockburn 2010), clashes of cultures, ethnic, and religious communities (Durie­ While the ways in which each body is understood and smith 2017; Kaldor 2012), as well as control and valued in patriarchal societies is subjective, all patri­ struggle between states and nation­states (Cockburn archies privilege masculinity. Material power and re­ 2010, 139). source inequalities between women and men happen culturally and ideologically through the “elevation of Feminists have also demonstrated how gender is used ways of being and knowing associated with men and to justify war. Gender has been used in narratives that masculinity over those associated with women and attempted to legitimize and draw popular support for femininity” (Hooper 1998, 31 cited in Eichler 2014, both World Wars, the Cold War, the First Gulf War, 83). Masculinist ideologies in societies tend to make the Yugoslav Wars, the Second Chechen War, and the invisible the processes through which men and mas­ ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq (Sjoberg culinity gain status, authority, and power over women 2011, 121). Gendered narratives of good and bad and femininities by presenting male power as inevit­ guys, protector and protected, civilized and brutish, able, natural, or desirable—including in the running and good and bad masculinity influence and shape of states and militaries (Ibid.). Feminist research conflict. As Claire Duncanson notes, “the association demonstrates the various ways in which gender is so­ of masculinity with toughness, aggression, and war, cially constructed in diverse societies (Hacking 1999) and femininity with weakness, passivity, and peace and speaks to the supposition that associations about privileges ‘tough’ responses to conflict and feminizes masculinities, or “what men do,” and femininities, or nonviolent alternatives, reinforcing the systems of war “what women do,” have the possibility to be construc­ and militarism” (2015, 235). ted differently (Schippers 2007). In other words, as gender is a social construction, it is subject to trans­ Militaries often draw on these gendered dualisms to formational change (Duncanson 2015). e domin­ “persuade people (mostly men) to fight” (Sjoberg ant gender order does not have to be this way, and as 2011, 122). Examinations of the Canadian military such, through scholarship and practice feminists have (Davis 2007; Whitworth 2005) and British Armed

Atlantis Journal Issue 41.2 / 2020 29 Forces (Woodward and Winter 2007) demonstrate cially in relation to winning wars, understanding shifts that militaries tend to draw on idealized notions of in geopolitical contexts (Allen 2010), and the resultant manhood in relation to the military identity. Laura “changing needs of military learners” (Persyn and Sjoberg explains that tropes, stereotypes, and ar­ Polson 2012, 5­6). Since the Cold War’s end, increased chetypal identities of bravado, virility, and masculinity complexities and changes in military missions and op­ are common across militaries. Her work demonstrates erations have triggered calls for critical thought, em­ that sexist jokes, name calling, and chants are used to pathy, and intellectual flexibility (2012, 453). Several shape the sorts of gendered behaviours militaries asso­ nations, the United States in particular, have renewed ciate with warriors (Sjoberg 2011, 122). She explains focus on investigating and influencing local cultures “rather than just being incidental, this sexist language (Brown and Okros 2018). Moreover, research on the and behavior is endemic” as militaries very intention­ delivery and applications of PME have often concen­ ally use gendered narratives to turn ordinary people trated on its value in increasing military competencies into soldiers (Ibid.). and effectiveness, specifically in aligning military thinking with military ethos, doctrine, and ideology Yet, the processes through which ordinary citizens are (Brown and Syme­Taylor 2012; Taber 2009). PME is made and molded into soldiers are unique to each also typically reactive to events that have led to civil military’s culture (Masters 2005; Sasson­Levy 2003; mistrust of the armed forces. For example, revisions to Segal 1999). Hence, idealized identities within milit­ Canadian PME to include education on military ethos aries are relational to militaries’ unique histories, and values of dignity and respect occurred in the wake norms, and contexts. ose military masculinities that of the 1993 military scandal known as the Somalia rise to ascendency do so in constant negotiation with Affair, referring to the torture and murder of Shidane other competing militarized masculinities and femin­ Arone by Canadian military personnel (Whitworth inities (Duncanson 2015; Parpart and Partridge 2005). Additional revisions to include education on 2015). harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour were in­ fluenced by findings of the Deschamps Report (2015) For example, my research as well as Duncanson’s that confirmed the military’s sexualized culture. ese (2015) study of the British Armed Forces indicates changes are illustrations of the use of PME to set the that militarized masculinities and femininities do not military on the right side of civil­military relations, always promote violence and masculinist values, and to align the thinking of officers to value the dig­ though they often do. Our mutually reinforcing re­ nity and respect for all persons (Brown and Syme­ search demonstrates that the military is also capable of Taylor 2012; Taber 2009). constructing masculinities and femininities that do not support patriarchal social arrangements but facilit­ Nancy Taber argues that what is needed in the current ate conditions for transformative change both within context is education that is focused on feminist trans­ armed forces and societies. ese more transforma­ formations of the Canadian military’s organizational tional gender constructions are in competition with culture by challenging binary gender constructs and dominant constructions which do uphold patriarchal destabilizing masculinism (Taber 2018, 105). I suggest social orders. As the following section demonstrates, that the groundwork for such feminist advances in feminist pedagogy in PME has worked to expose pat­ PME has already been laid by the interventions of, riarchal social orders and highlight the capacity for largely, women activists who lobbied for international militaries and societies to work for change. policy to break down hierarchical gender relations and transform patriarchal systems of power, including mil­ Applications of Feminist Pedagogy in PME itarism (Cohn 2008). eir work seeks to increase global awareness about the differential impact of viol­ Historically, militaries have spent significant resources ence, conflict, and poverty on women and girls. It was and attention on the education of their officers, espe­ their advocacy that resulted in the adoption of the

Atlantis Journal Issue 41.2 / 2020 30 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Dis­ ture shaped the learning environment and influenced crimination against Women (1979), the Beijing De­ the reception of gender and cultural education? Finally, claration and Platform for Action (1995) (UN if and in what ways has this learning facilitated femin­ Women), UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) ist transformations and institutional culture change? 1325 and related resolutions on Women, Peace and Security (WPS). ese international instruments have I employed multiple methods to conduct this research. called on UN member states to work towards gender e initial stages of research included information col­ equality and consider the differential impact of con­ lection on policy guiding the integration of gender and flict particularly for women and girls (UNSCR 2000). cultural perspectives in PME and a review of cur­ ey have been used by feminist military and civilian riculum, learning outcomes, evaluation/assessment faculty to push for the inclusion of gender and cultur­ guides, and syllabi to uncover the extent to which al perspectives within Canada’s PME programmes gender and cultural perspectives have been integrated (Brown and Okros 2018) including the Joint Com­ into JCSP. e following stages comprised Critical mand and Staff Programme (JCSP). Discourse Analysis (Dijk 1993) of the semi­structured interviews I conducted in the form of focus groups Drawing on these frameworks, current policy and and individual interviews (Deschaux­Beaume 2012). guidance on the application of gender perspectives in Ethnographic data was collected in six semi­structured the CAF such as the Chief of Defence Staff directive focus groups and 16 in­depth interviews that gleaned on the integration of UNSCR 1325 (Chief of Defence observations and experiences from staff and students at Staff 2016b) and the Gender Aide­Memoire (2019) Canadian Forces College (CFC). Participants were re­ have opened up space for educators to facilitate milit­ cruited through internal College email which solicited ary professionals to consider the root causes of con­ volunteers interested in sharing their experiences with flict, unequal systems such as gender, race, economic the integration of gender and cultural perspectives in and social class, and their cultural specificity in PME. JCSP curriculum. is sampling method may have ese instruments have further enabled feminists resulted in capturing bias for the integration of gender within Canadian military colleges to push critical and cultural perspectives in curriculum, particularly thinking about hierarchical gender orders, masculin­ among individual interview participants. Of note, ism, and militarism both inside and outside of the however, focus groups served as a counterbalance as military. they contained a broad range of opinions, as those who were curious about, or vocally opposed to the in­ Methods tegration of gender and cultural perspectives did at­ tend. In addition, focus groups and interviews were My methodological approach intentionally aimed to arranged across the College’s various subgroups of cur­ advance gender equality and anti­racism in the process riculum developers, deliverers, and students to gain a of conducting research. To do this I drew from literat­ fulsome understanding of the social setting and cul­ ures on intersectionality, militarized masculinities, and ture. postmodern feminism to inform my sociological and ethnographic research questions, to look for and inter­ e first set of focus groups were intentionally sex se­ pret themes within the data collected, and to make gregated to capture the diversity of gendered experi­ concrete recommendations for continued feminist ences among same sex groups. ese focus groups change. Drawing from a review of primary literature drew from the perspectives of female (n=10) and male as well as qualitative in­depth interviews and focus (n=10) student volunteers enrolled in JCSP. Focus groups, my investigation was guided by the following groups were also conducted with volunteers from Mil­ questions: To what extent have gender and cultural itary Faculty (n=8), military Curriculum and Training perspectives been integrated into JCSP curriculum? If Developers (n=7), Information Resource Centre staff and in what ways have military socialization and cul­ (n=6), and civilian Academic Faculty (n=4). In­depth

Atlantis Journal Issue 41.2 / 2020 31 individual interviews were conducted with nine addi­ e defence policy also “commits to gender equality tional students (female n=3 and male n=6). Individual and providing a work environment where women are interviews were also conducted with Military Faculty welcomed, supported and respected” (Ibid., 21). It (n=3), civilian Academic Faculty (n=2) and Informa­ stresses that “training and education are at the core of tion Resource Centre staff (n=2). Follow­up interviews the Defence Team’s commitment to GBA+ as a means were then conducted with eight graduates of JCSP (n= to advance gender equality in Canada” (Ibid., 24). In 4 females, n= 4 males) after they had been in staff and 2016, the Chief of the Defence Staff issued a directive leadership roles for a minimum of three months. for the military “to integrate…GBA+ into its opera­ ese follow­up interviews aimed to assess if and how tional planning, conduct of missions, and across its in­ graduates applied learning about gender and cultural stitutions” (Chief of Defence Staff 2016b, s. 10). e perspectives such as gender­based and intersectional directive asserts that in an effort to mainstream GBA+ analysis and content on diversity, equity, and inclusion across the Canadian military “the initial focus will be to their daily work in the military, and if this learning the integration of these considerations into the design facilitated efforts toward culture change desired by the and delivery of operational effect” by “incorporating institution (Chief of Defence Staff 2016b). GBA+ into CAF training and education” (Ibid., s.13).

Policy Review Findings e directive also intends to “spur cultural change, by requiring all members of DND­CAF to familiarize Findings from my initial review of policy show the themselves with GBA+ and to take responsibility for commitments Canada has made to international its implementation” (Johnstone and Momani n.d.). policy that advances gender equality and the WPS However, a significant challenge presents itself in de­ agenda. As explained in detail below, these high­level veloping the calibre of education and training neces­ policy commitments have been further articulated in sary for military members to acquire competencies in national defence and internal military policy in ways applying gender and intersectional perspectives across that have direct implications for PME. ese commit­ a range of functions and responsibilities. Currently, all ments have led to institutional policy within the De­ CAF personnel are required to complete a GBA+ partment of National Defence (DND) and CAF to training module. is course is under two hours and is mainstream gender perspectives across all aspects of directed broadly to federal department personnel their work and to incorporate gender and intersection­ (Status of Women 2018b). e military also has a al perspectives into military training and education. As GBA+ infrastructure that includes: a Joint­Responsib­ signatory to the Beijing Platform, Canada committed ility Centre on GBA+ with Directors appointed to to mainstreaming gender perspectives in all its policies oversee GBA+ initiatives; Gender Advisors (who give and programs (UN 1995, s. 202). In 1995, the Cana­ advice to Commanders responsible for the integration dian government formally adopted a Gender­based of GBA+ in plans, actions, and evaluations); and Analysis (GBA) approach to be used across federal de­ Gender Focal Points (tasked with assisting the integra­ partments and agencies (Office of the Auditor General tion of GBA+ within their branches) (Johnstone and 2009). In 2011, GBA+ was introduced (Status of Wo­ Momani n.d.). In theory, Gender Advisors and Gender men Canada 2018a). e plus “goes beyond biological Focal Points receive requisite training on the theoretic­ (sex) and socio­cultural (gender) differences” to exam­ al frameworks of GBA+ and its applications to military ine “many other identity factors, like race, ethnicity, plans and actions. In practice, however, there is a signi­ religion, age, and mental or physical disability” (Status ficant gap to be filled in both the training available and of Women Canada 2018b). Canada’s defence policy the adequacy of present education (Brown 2018). notes the intent to leverage the CAF to advance the meaningful participation and empowerment of wo­ CAF Gender Advisors can attend courses approved by men and to apply GBA+ institutionally, domestically, NATO (Swedish Armed Forces 2020) as well as and internationally (National Defence 2017). courses on WPS and gender perspectives offered by the

Atlantis Journal Issue 41.2 / 2020 32 Australian Defence Force (Australian Government also demonstrated its work towards change. While 2020) and British Ministry of Defence (2020). Aside doctrine such as Duty with Honour (Chief of Defence from a mobile NATO Gender Advisor course offered Staff 2009) as well as programmes and direction such at CFC in 2018, Gender Advisor training of this as the Standards of Harassment and Racism Preven­ nature is not yet offered by the Canadian military tion, Operation HONOUR (Chief of Defence Staff (Brown 2018). However, a two­day course on GBA+ 2015), and the CAF Diversity Strategy (Chief of De­ that qualifies Defence Team members as Gender Focal fence Staff 2016a) have been reactive to the publicity Points is available (Global Affairs Canada 2018). of systemic issues within the military, these frameworks have created a foundation for critical thought. While ere are also additional institutional policies that in­ these programmes have not been enough to foster fluence the integration of gender and intersectional meaningful transformations within the institution, the perspectives within PME. For example, Operation expansion of feminist and intersectional learning in HONOUR aims to eliminate inappropriate sexual be­ PME provides hope that meaningful transformation haviour and calls for culture change led by Canadian can be achieved. military leadership and increased education on harass­ ment prevention (Chief of Defence Staff 2015, s. 13­ Ethnographic Findings 14). e CAF Diversity Strategy also calls for in­ creased diversity, inclusion, and culture change (Chief JCSP has gradually added content on gender and cul­ of Defence Staff 2016a). ese institutional policies tural perspectives over the years and offers modules on serve to improve the social status and power of women GBA+ in operations and institutional policy, gender within the organization, and ultimately place women’s and military socialization, and diversity and identity right to freedom from violence and discrimination in­ (Brown 2018). Notwithstanding these advances, there to a policy framework that has been translated into are a range of organizational challenges that contribute curriculum in PME. to apathy and resistance to critical gender and intersec­ tional thought. Using Critical Discourse Analysis, I However, ongoing challenges with the inclusion of was able to identify these challenges in the discourses women and members of diverse sexualities and ethni­ produced, circulated, and negotiated among parti­ cities within the Canadian military can make trans­ cipants. In doing so, I traced common narratives of formational possibilities for CAF difficult to imagine. participants to determine the extent to which social Historically, any progressive change to diversify practices that produce gender inequality and equality Canadian military demographics was a consequence were proliferated through language and what hege­ of external pressure and not directly because of an in­ monic processes were represented in alliances, discords, stitutional desire to evolve (Madsen 1999). Systemic and silences within focus groups. gender and intersectional inequalities present in the Canadian military include challenges with the integra­ e challenges can be grouped into three broad areas. tion and treatment of women (Davis 2007) and LGB­ e first area is the ad hoc and superficial way in TQ2I personnel (Okros and Scott 2015); which gender and cultural perspectives were often institutionalized racism and challenges with the integ­ presented within the curriculum. Second, participants ration of Indigenous peoples and people of colour observed a masculinist culture that privileged a narrow within the institution (Joost 2015; Razack 2004; intersectional identity of male, white, and masculine Whitworth 2005); as well as a sexualized culture hos­ warriors. e warrior identity and masculinist culture tile to women and LGBTQ2I members (Deschamps were observed to be roadblocks to thinking critically 2015). about unequal gender relations. ird, participants noted unsatisfactory explanations of gender and racial While CAF reproduces gender and intersecting in­ inequalities, and of tools such as GBA+. is inad­ equalities, there are areas in which the institution has equate explanation, participants observed, created con­

Atlantis Journal Issue 41.2 / 2020 33 fusion about intersectional inequalities and discrimin­ tunity for the College to erode barriers to gender and ation and was perceived to lead to apathy about fem­ cultural education by mainstreaming these areas across inist change within the military and in societies. programming. In doing so, participants reflected that Despite these challenges, participants also noted that CFC could become an international leader among the curriculum on gender and cultural perspectives PME institutes by offering more robust content on that did resonate well enabled them to challenge their gender and cultural perspectives about the military and latent biases, raise awareness about intersecting in­ security (Brown 2018). equities, and work towards change. Masculinist Culture and the Warrior Archetype Ad hoc and Superficial Presentations of Gender and Cul­ tural Perspectives Participants observed a masculinist culture that priv­ ileges whiteness, the English language, heterosexuality, Participants commonly observed a fair degree of resist­ and combat warrior identities at CFC. CFC culture ance to the presentation of gender and cultural per­ was determined to constitute a significant social barrier spectives by College leadership and educators due to to the equal and equitable treatment of female, racial­ existing intersectional social hierarchies and exclusion­ ized, linguistic, and sexual and gender minorities in ary cultural practices. Many expressed that hierarchies the learning environment. is dominant intersection­ and internal resistance equated to ad hoc presentations al identity is described in the responses below from and sometimes poor delivery of these ideas. Despite two female students. e first notes that there is an in­ recognition of narrow idealizations of militarized mas­ stitutional bias towards a masculine warrior archetype, culinity in the culture at CFC, many participants re­ where the combat identity is privileged over others. flected that the education on gender and cultural e second points to a cultural preference for institu­ perspectives that was delivered effectively enabled a tionally masculinized “operator” roles that are boots­on­ shift in their perspectives. Some noted that the lessons the­ground and door­kicking rather than more femin­ they received helped them to identify and disrupt the ized “support” roles. privileging of maleness, masculinity, and whiteness in Oh no, it is not equal. But the rivalries inside the learning environment. ese efforts indicate that the military are very prevalent at JCSP. ere is gender and intersectional learning can set conditions definitely a bias towards the combat arms, but for military students and College staff to think critic­ that is the reality. It is not just a JCSP thing.... I ally and engage in discussion about gender and cultur­ think there is an order in the military, and I al inequality in the classroom, the institution, Canada, think it is reproduced in JCSP. and society more broadly. Operators are the most important and they are As the following reflection of a female graduate always right.... I have even heard people say, “I demonstrates, the superficial way in which gender and don’t care, you are just going to support wher­ cultural perspectives are sometimes taught may ever we decide to go.”… It is viewed as a compe­ present a barrier to their reception: tition. is is the challenge. We are trying to provoke a culture change with giving two PowerPoint pre­ ese inequalities of power and status were also ob­ sentations…. It has to be incorporated in every­ served along other intersectional lines such as lan­ thing that we do, otherwise we will never get guage, racialization, and gender, or through there. We need to change the way leaders are idealizations of “alpha” warrior masculinities, ethno­ thinking and the way that the troops are re­ centric views, and in some cases, misogynist thinking. spectfully interacting with their peers. Student participants perceived that these idealizations and norms created a culture antagonistic to women, Participants of my study observed that there is oppor­ racialized, and Francophone members; noting in par­

Atlantis Journal Issue 41.2 / 2020 34 ticular the feminization, or marginalization of, Fran­ Inadequate Explanations of Gender and Intersectional cophone culture comparatively to Anglophone cul­ Inequality ture. e following exchange between male student participants highlights the marginalization of Franco­ Participants observed that the integration of gender phone culture: and cultural perspectives was incoherent and some­ e white male who is standing over me ticking times presented in confusing ways. Gender, as a me [marking my participation] is the one judg­ concept, was identified to have often been left unex­ ing how you think, how you sit, how you talk amined. As one of the female student participants and how you present yourself. at has tremen­ noted: dous impact on anyone, and when you speak I think the way that gender is being instructed French, and someone right away corrects you is not well explained, people still don’t under­ for doing that, that affects everyone. at micro stand the difference between masculinity and aggression: “everyone who is French, or Franco femininity as traits and what that means from a speaking, has to leave and go to another room gender perspective…. People associate gender because we have to sort out the bilingual prob­ with men and women…. A lot of people are lems you guys have” well, what does that say? getting fed up with talking about gender, but I think they just don’t understand what it means at was brilliant. at was awesome [sarcasm]. and that is why we need to talk about it more.

How is that inclusive and how does that help Participants also noted that gender perspectives were the bilingual problem within the College? It’s often conflated with women. For example, a military not everyone who speaks French who has the faculty member argued that: problem, and they need to leave! en the mi­ We have a tendency in this group to talk about cro aggression and things that go on at this gender equaling women. Alright, but gender school, when you start to pick at it, is huge! equals much more than just women. So, when we did the case study and they wrote on gender is exchange and the previous quotations combine to in Colombia, that whole paper started to focus show the intersectional and gendered social hierarchies on women and women’s rights in Colombia. produced in the learning environment. ey indicate When we talk about gender, we need to the narrowly idealized ways in which military identity broaden our perspectives ourselves as in “this is is understood in relation to maleness, masculinity, actually broader than just a women discussion.” whiteness, Anglophone culture, and heterosexuality. Participants across all subgroups overwhelmingly Furthermore, participants expressed that applications noted the hegemony of the Army, and in particular, of GBA+ in curriculum were often related to women’s Army warrior constructs. Participants routinely spoke integration and Operation HONOUR (sexual mis­ to how these constructs were given meaning in and conduct) exclusively and prevented discussion of through intersecting idealizations of gender, race, lan­ gender, power, and inequalities. As one female student guage, and sexuality. e privileging of these intersect­ observed: ing identities was observed to produce clear A lot of times when we talked about gender in intersectional social hierarchies in the classroom where the military, the discussion about Operation the attitudes, worldviews, and behaviours that HONOUR always comes back. And Operation destabilized dominant gender constructions were HONOUR is not just about women. So, they heavily policed by some educators and peers but were associate the two together, the same way they also actively pursued by others (Brown 2018). associate gender with women.

Atlantis Journal Issue 41.2 / 2020 35 ese conflations and misunderstandings were linked soldiers … [on] assumptions about recruitment, by participants to feelings of fatigue and apathy about the quotas about how many women we need in applications of gender perspectives and GBA+. the CF and things like this. So that’s how I kind of include it in my daily work…the few times Limitations in teaching about cultural perspectives that it came up, it was obvious that what I’ve were also observed. Faculty members noted that the learned was of value. absence of these perspectives in JCSP curriculum has minimized opportunities for senior military officers to In addition to awareness raising, some participants develop critical reflection skills necessary to confront also spoke about their work towards broader organiza­ personal and institutional bias. ey found that lim­ tional shifts by advocating for policy change. Some re­ ited content on cultural perspectives may have con­ flected on their role in changing procurement policies strained students’ opportunities to learn about the to reflect the needs of diverse Canadian military mem­ views and experiences of people located at the margins bers, while others recalled their influence to shifts in of power in society. Despite these limitations, my re­ comportment and dress policy to better accommodate search also indicates the positive impact that learning diverse bodies and gender identities. about cultural perspectives has had on senior officers’ leadership and work. e following reflection from a female graduate shows her experience of mainstreaming gender and cultural Feminist Progress in Military Leaders’ Localized Practices perspectives in personnel policy: of Transformation I make sure it’s included. It would be part of the GBA+ protocol, but nobody was doing it before Drawing on follow up interviews with eight pro­ I got here. I work mostly with the Gender Advi­ gramme graduates, my research illuminates how seni­ sor of the Command…. A good example, men or officers have applied their learning towards are able to wear a beard now. So, the minute localized practices of transformation aimed at disrupt­ that conversion came out, I contacted the dress ing patriarchal social orders and fostering intersection­ company and I asked “Ok so when are we go­ al equality. Some examples include awareness raising, ing to do the full gender, like the GBA+ analysis bias interruption, and facilitating shifts in thinking. and consider some changes for women?” And as an example, like the way women have to wear e following experience was recounted by a male their hair. And they go “We’re not ready for graduate: that.” I’m like “I don’t care if you are not ready, We needed to do a suicide awareness brief on we as a society are there, so we need to move on the wing. e intent was to bring in the fami­ with it." lies. So, automatically…the idea was for the families, for the spouses, we would do a briefing In addition to ensuring that gender and cultural per­ at night because automatically that’s the best spectives are included in military policy, some parti­ option right?... So that’s when I stopped like cipants also indicated that they used their knowledge “Ok, let’s look at who we have … what about if to request disaggregated information on sex, gender, the spouses are not working or they are at home and other intersectional identity factors such as ethni­ during the day? It might be easier for them to city, age, and ability to inform policy, procurement, come in [the day] because their kids are at and operational planning decisions. ese actions and school. And what about the ones that have a analyses by senior officers set the conditions for mean­ child at home?”… So, it was kind of question­ ingful feminist progress within the institution, changes ing the assumption that “the spouses will come that create a more inclusive and equitable work envir­ at night and that’s it.”… Outside of that, it’s onment for women, men, and gender diverse indi­ been mostly in terms of discussions with other viduals.

Atlantis Journal Issue 41.2 / 2020 36 Two officers deployed on international missions de­ achieving gender equality and peace rather than lever­ scribed using gender and cultural perspectives to tailor aging gender to win wars. Such localized interventions their approach and conduct in operations with local resist determinist thinking “even in an institution communities. Each reflected on power disparities in where change might appear least likely” (Ibid.). gender, sex, and age, as well as competing cultural in­ terests in specific regions. Both indicated the value of Taber writes that the military “must fundamentally re­ applying gender and cultural perspectives to their think what it means to be a man, a woman, or work, but, each also stated that gaps in PME about someone who does not fit into that binary” (2018, how to conduct gender and intersectional analyses led 105). She argues that “masculinization must be chal­ them to do more independent learning on the fly dur­ lenged as a route to successful military membership ing missions such as consulting online courses and just as feminization must be challenged as a way to reaching out to peers that had formal gender educa­ devalue and objectify people” (Ibid.). My research tion and training (Brown 2018). ese examples of demonstrates that some senior officers have used this the application of gender and intersectional perspect­ learning to do just that. eir internalization and ives indicate deep consideration of institutional, inter­ practice of the few feminist and intersectional theories personal, and personal bias. ey demonstrate efforts and frameworks that have been presented to them has to uncover and address inequalities. ey illuminate enabled their contributions to feminist progress, even how gender and cultural learning in PME has contrib­ within a context resistant to feminist thinking and uted to military members’ localized efforts towards practice. eir localized interventions have worked to meaningful social transformation and change. “regender” the military by presenting alternative fem­ inist visions to counter dominant patriarchal and Conclusion white­privileging constructions.

e transformational work of these senior officers to Yet, more work is required to integrate gender and influence military policy, raise awareness, and address cultural perspectives “to the degree that [they are] al­ gender and intersectional inequality breaks with gen­ ways considered as an essential and integral element of eralized narratives of the self­serving motivations for all CAF activities” (Chief of Defence Staff 2016b). militaries to employ gender perspectives. e officers’ Gender and cultural perspectives must be formally articulation of cases, practices, and examples in which built into core elements of training and education. they intentionally used a range of gender expressions is education must be delivered by military and civil­ and perspectives to promote peace and security and ian faculty with demonstrated knowledge and expert­ work towards broader visions of intersectional equality ise in these areas. Importantly, this education must demonstrates that the integration of feminist perspect­ work to identify and challenge patriarchal power ar­ ives within PME has transformative potential. e in­ rangements, masculinist constructions of military sights of this research contribute to a small but identity, and cultural resistance to intersectional equal­ growing literature that views the military as a space ity. It must encourage equity, social justice, and the within which feminists can work towards meaningful full and meaningful participation of women, Black, change. Indigenous, people of colour, and LGBTQ2I people. is education must promote diversity and inclusion. e experiences and observations of this study’s parti­ Finally, this education must situate military members cipants indicate a process of negotiation and efforts to within the process of transformative feminist progress, disrupt inequitable social hierarchies within the milit­ so they can see themselves as important agents of ary and societies. Work to make “small changes that change. [may] seem superficial” (Duncanson and Woodward 2016, 11) illustrates that some military members are drawing on feminist education for the intrinsic goal of

Atlantis Journal Issue 41.2 / 2020 37 References national­defence/services/benefits­military/conflict­ misconduct/operation­honour/orders­policies­ Allen, Charles. D. 2010. “Redress of Professional directives/cds­operation­order.html. Military Education: e Clarion Call.” Joint Forces Quarterly 59 (4): 94­100. Chief of Defence Staff. 2016a. Canadian Armed Forces Diversity Strategy. Ottawa: Directorate of Human Australian Government. 2020. “Gender Advisor Rights and Diversity. Course.” Department of Defence, Australian Defence College. https://www.defence.gov.au/ADC/adftc/ Chief of Defence Staff. 2016b. “CDS Directive for POTC/ Integrating UNSCR 1325 and Related Resolutions Gender_Adviser.asp#:~:text=e%20aim%20of%20th into CAF Planning and Operations.” https:// e%20GENAD,conduct%20of%20operations%20or% www.canada.ca/en/department­national­defence/ 20exercises. services/operations/military­operations/conduct/cds­ directive­unscr­1325.html. British Ministry of Defence. 2020. “Human Security Advisor Course.” Defence Academy of the United Cockburn, Cynthia. 2010. “Gender Relations as Kingdom. https://www.da.mod.uk/course/HSA. Causal in Militarization and War.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 12 (2): 139­57. Brown, Katherine and Victoria Syme­Taylor. 2012. “Women Academics and Feminism in Professional Cockburn, Cynthia. 2011. “Snagged on the Military Education.” Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: Contradiction: NATO UNSC Resolution 1325, and An International Journal 31 (5/6): 452­66. Feminist Responses.” Unpublished manuscript. http:// www.cynthiacockburn.org/BlogNATO1325.pdf. Brown, Vanessa. 2018. Report on the Integration of Gender and Cultural Perspectives and an Inclusive Cohn, Carol. 2008. “Mainstreaming Gender in UN Learning Environment in the Joint Command and Staff Security Policy: A Path to Political Transformation.” In Programme. Prepared for Canadian Forces College. Analysing and Transforming Global Governance: Feminist Perspectives, edited by Shirin M. Rai, and Brown, Vanessa, and Alan Okros. 2018. “New Georgina Waylen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Leaders, ‘New Wars’: A Reflective Approach to Press. Applying Gender and Cultural Perspectives.” In From “Knowing” to “Doing”: International Perspectives on Cook, Nancy. 2007. Gender Relations in Global Leading Effectively, edited by Daniel Watola and Perspective: Essential Readings. Toronto, ON: Canadian Allister MacIntyre: 235­90. Kingston, ON: Canadian Scholars Press Inc. Defence Academy Press. Davis, Karen, ed. 2007. Women and Leadership in the Butler, Judith. 2007. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Canadian Forces: Perspectives and Experience. Kingston, Subversion of Identity. Routledge Classics. NY: ON: Canadian Defence Academy Press. Routledge. De Beauvoir, Simone. 1949. e Second Sex. Chief of Defence Staff. 2009. Duty with Honour: e Translation by Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany­ Profession of Arms in Canada (2nd ed.). Kingston: Chevallier, NY: Vintage Books. Canadian Forces Leadership Institute. Deschamps, Marie. 2015. External Review into Sexual Chief of Defence Staff. 2015. “CDS Op Order – Op Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian HONOUR.” https://www.canada.ca/en/department­ Armed Forces. National Defence and the Canadian

Atlantis Journal Issue 41.2 / 2020 38 Forces. https://www.canada.ca/en/department­ Hacking, Ian. 1999. e Social Construction of What? national­defence/corporate/reports­publications/ Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. sexual­misbehaviour/external­review­2015.html. Johnstone, Rachael, and Bessma Momani. (n.d.). Deschaux­Beaume, Delphine. 2012. “Investigating the “GBA+ Policy Brief.” Canadian Network for Defence Military Field: Qualitative Research Strategy and and Security Analysis. Interviewing in the Defence Networks.” Current Sociology 60 (1): 101­17. Joost, Mathias. 2015. “Racism and Enlistment: e Second World War Policies of the Royal Canadian Dijk, Teun. 1993. “Principles of Critical Discourse Airforce.” Canadian Military History 21 (1): 17­34. Analysis.” Discourse & Society 4 (2): 249­83. Kaldor, Mary. 2012. New and Old Wars: Organized Duncanson, Claire. 2015. “Hegemonic Masculinity Violence in a Global Era. Cambridge, Mass: Polity and the Possibility of Change in Gender Relations.” Press. Men and Masculinities 18 (2): 231­48. Kirby, Paul, and Laura Shepherd. 2016. “e Futures Duncanson, Claire, and Rachel Woodward. 2016. Past of the Women, Peace and Security Agenda.” “Regendering the Military: eorizing Women’s International Affairs 92 (2): 373­92. Military Participation.” Security Dialogue 47 (1): 3­21. Madsen, Chris. 1999. Another Kind of Justice: Duriesmith, David. 2017. Masculinity and New War: Canadian Military Law from Confederation to Somalia. e Gendered Dynamics of Contemporary Armed Vancouver: UBC Press. Conflict. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge. Masters, Cristina. 2005. “Bodies of Technology: Duriesmith, David. 2019. “Engaging or Changing Cyborg Soldiers and Militarized Masculinities.” Men? Understandings of Masculinity and Change in International Feminist Journal of Politics 7 (1): 112­32. the New ‘Men, Peace and Security’ Agenda.” Peacebuilding, 1­14. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ McClintock, Anne. 1995. Imperial Leather: Race, full/10.1080/21647259.2019.1687076 Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest. London; New York: Routledge. Eichler, Maya. 2014. “Militarized Masculinities in International Relations.” e Brown Journal of World National Defence. 2017. Strong, Secure, Engaged: Affairs 21 (1): 81­93. Canada’s National Defence Policy. National Defence.

Elshtain, Jean Bethke. 1987. Women and War. New Office of the Auditor General. 2009. Spring Report of York: Basic Books. the Auditor General. https://www.oag­bvg.gc.ca/ internet/English/ Eriksson Baaz, Maria, and Maria Stern. 2009. ‘‘Why parl_oag_200905_01_e_32514.html. Do Soldiers Rape? Masculinity, Violence and Sexuality in the Armed Forces in the Congo.’’ International Office of the High Commissioner Human Rights Studies Quarterly 53: 495­518. (OHCHR). “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women New York, Global Affairs Canada. 2018. “GBA+ for DND & 18 December 1979.” United Nations. https:// CAF: An Institutional Approach.” Centre for www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ Intercultural Learning: Canadian Foreign Service cedaw.aspx. Institute.

Atlantis Journal Issue 41.2 / 2020 39 Okros, Alan, and Denise Scott. 2015. “Gender of analysis.’” International Relations 25 (1): 108­34. Identity in the Canadian Forces: A Review of Possible Impacts on Operational Effectiveness.” Armed Forces Status of Women Canada. 2018a. “Introduction to and Society 41 (2): 243­56. GBA+.” Government of Canada. https://cfc­swc.gc.ca/ gba­acs/course­cours/eng/modA1/ Parpart, Jane, and Kevin Partridge. 2015. “Soldiering modA1_01_05.html. On: Pushing Militarized Masculinities into New Territory.” In e SAGE Handbook of Feminist eory, Status of Women Canada. 2018b. “What is GBA+.” edited by Mary Evans, Clare Hemmings, Marsha Government of Canada. https://cfc­swc.gc.ca/gba­acs/ Henry, Hazel Johnstone, Sumi Madhok, Ania index­en.html. Plomien, and Sadie Wearing, 550­65. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Swedish Armed Forces. 2020. “NATO Gender Advisor Course.” SWEDINT/NCGM. https:// Persyn, John, and Cheryl Polson. 2012. “Evolution www.forsvarsmakten.se/en/swedint/nordic­centre­for­ and Influence of Military Adult Education.” New gender­in­military­operations/courses­at­ncgm­and­ Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 136: 5­ how­to­apply2/nordefco­gender­advisor­course/. 16. Taber, Nancy. 2009. “e Profession of Arms: Razack, Sherene. 2004. Dark reats and White Ideological Codes and Dominant Narratives of Knights: e Somalia Affair, Peacekeeping, and the New Gender in the Canadian Military.” Atlantis: A Women’s Imperialism. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Studies Journal 34: 27­36. Press. Taber, Nancy. 2015. “Intersecting Discourses of Sasson­Levy, Orna. 2003. “Feminism and Military Gender: Military and Academic Gendered Gender Practices: Israeli Women Soldiers in Organizations.” International Journal of Lifelong ‘Masculine’ Roles.” Sociological Inquiry 73: 440­65. Education 34 (2): 230­46.

Schippers, Mimi. 2007. “Recovering the Feminine Taber, Nancy. 2018. “After Deschamps: Men, Other: Masculinity, Femininity, and Gender Masculinities, and the Canadian Armed Forces.” Hegemony.” eoretical Sociology 36: 85­102. Journal of Military, Veteran and Family Health 4(1): 100­7. Segal, Mady. 1999. “Gender and the Military.” In Handbook of the Sociology of Gender, edited by Janet S. eweleit, Klaus. 1987. Male Fantasies, Vol. 1. Chafetz, 563­81. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Cambridge: Polity Press. Plenum Publishers. United Nations. 1995. “Beijing Declaration and Segal, Lynne. 2008. “Gender, War and Militarism: Platform for Action.” United Nations Fourth World Making and Questioning the Links.” Feminist Review Conference on Women. www.un.org/womenwatch/ 88: 21­35. daw/beijing/pdf/BDPfA%20E.pdf

Shildrick, Margrit. 1997. Leaky Bodies and Boundaries: United Nations Security Council. 2000. Resolution Feminism, Postmodernism, and (bio)Ethics, London: 1325. http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/1325. Routledge. Whitworth, Sandra. 2005. “Militarized Masculinities Sjoberg, Laura. 2011. “Gender, the state, and war and the Politics of Peacekeeping: e Canadian Case.” redux: Feminist international relations across the ‘levels In Critical Security Studies in World Politics, edited by

Atlantis Journal Issue 41.2 / 2020 40 Ken Booth, 89­106. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Woodward, Rachel, and Winter, Trish. 2007. Sexing the Soldier: e Politics of Gender and the Contemporary British Army. London: Routledge.

Atlantis Journal Issue 41.2 / 2020 41