Special Issue: Women in the Military Armed Forces & Society 2017, Vol. 43(2) 202-220 ª The Author(s) 2016 Conceptualizing the Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0095327X16670692 Tensions Evoked by journals.sagepub.com/home/afs Gender Integration in the Military: The South African Case Lindy Heinecken1 Editor’s Note: This is the first of nine articles of the Armed Forces & Society Special Issue on Women in the Military appearing in Volume 43, Issue 2. Abstract The South African military has adopted an assertive affirmative action campaign to ensure that women are represented across all ranks and branches. This has brought about new tensions in terms of gender integration, related to issues of equal opportunities and meritocracy as well as the accommodation of gender difference and alternative values. The argument is made that the management of gender integration from a gender-neutral perspective cannot bring about gender equality, as it obliges women to conform to and assimilate masculine traits. This affects women’s ability to function as equals, especially where feminine traits are not valued, where militarized masculinities are privileged and where women are othered in ways that contribute to their subordination. Under such conditions, it is exceedingly difficult for women to bring about a more androgynous military culture espoused by gender mainstreaming initiatives and necessary for the type of missions military personnel are engaged in today. Keywords gender integration, equal opportunities, meritocracy, masculinity, femininity, military culture, gender mainstreaming 1 University of Steilenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa Corresponding Author: Lindy Heinecken, University of Steilenbosch, Private Bag X1, Matieland, Stellenbosch 7602, South Africa. Email: [email protected] Heinecken 203 Recent debates on lifting the restrictions on women serving in close combat roles in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Europe have once again brought into sharp focus the issues of gender equality and the integration of women in the military. This has been a long and enduring debate among scholars that revolves around women’s rights and suitability to serve in all occupational branches in the military, especially combat.1 The central argument underlying this is that women have the right to participate in all roles and activities of the military and that the exclusion of women from certain tasks based on cultural and biological factors is unjust (Malesevic,ˇ_ 2010). This, rather than manpower shortages or even operational need, has obliged armed forces to open up combat positions to women and to revise policies and practices that perpetuate sexism and discrimination that prevent women’s emancipation. To accommodate this, most armed forces have typically sought to manage gender integration from a gender-neutral, equal rights perspective based on the principles of fairness to counter discrimination (De Groot, 2001; Goldstein, 2001). However, given the biological differences between men and women, there is an inherent unfairness in this approach, especially where performance is based on physical criteria (Brownson, 2014; Cohn, 2000). This inevitably leads to debates around issues of meritocracy, which are premised not only on physical standards but on women’s suitability to serve in combat roles. While this remains a contentious issue, there is a wider development influencing gender integration based on the recognition that a more people-centric approach to security is necessary. Accordingly military organizations have tended to become less oriented toward violence, which implies that ‘‘the traditional aggressive, warrior like culture has to be balanced with these new deployments in task requirements,’’ which requires a more conciliatory approach to security (Soeters, Winslow, & Weibull, 2003, p. 252). This has led to a demand to increase the number of women in the military and deployed on peacekeeping missions as well as to mainstream gender in all facets of decision-making relating to security. However, political and societal pressures to have more women in the military have brought forth different tensions in terms of managing gender integration relating to the accommodation of gender difference and alternative values. Where this challenges militarized masculinity and male hegemony, it evokes various forms of resistance that denigrate women’s authority and ability to function as equals. Under such conditions, it is exceedingly difficult for women to assert their ‘‘voice,’’ infuse alternative values, and bring about a more androgynous military culture. The consequence is that it tends to reinforce existing stereotypes and makes it difficult for both men and women to assimilate positive masculinities and positive femininities as skill sets necessary for missions that focus on the protection of the population. To explore these tensions, reference is made to a study conducted among South African National Defence Force (SANDF) military personnel. South Africa is an interesting case study, as not only have women been allowed to serve in combat roles for almost two decades, they also represent just under a quarter (24%) of the full- 204 Armed Forces & Society 43(2) time forces. Of those deployed on peacekeeping missions on the African continent, 15% are women (Department of Defence [DOD], 2015). What is important to recognize is that the rapid increase in the number of women serving in the SANDF is not due to a shortage of personnel, or operational need, but based on national, regional, and international conventions and protocols relating to the need to main- stream gender in the security sector. This has evoked tensions around having to manage gender integration based on similarity, but at the same time emphasizing the importance of gender difference. To explain this, the various debates on gender integration are briefly outlined, before presenting the methodology and findings. In the final section, an attempt is made to develop a conceptual framework to point out the various positions that emerge that affect the integration of women. The argument is that where femininity is suppressed, it is not possible to bring about equality, equivalence, or a more androgynous military culture which is considered more appropriate for military missions today. The Different Debates on Gender Integration in the Military Most armed forces approach gender integration from a gender-neutral perspective that affords equal opportunities to all who meet the required standards. This means that as long as women (and men) meet the prescribed performance criteria, they should be permitted to serve in any position within the military. An overview of the literature on the subject shows that this feeds into a gamut of arguments around issues of ‘‘meritocracy’’ and how the inclusion of women are likely to impact not only on standards but organizational effectiveness. Central to this is women’s phys- ical (in)ability to meet the required standards, based on both biological and cultural explanations (see Archer, 2013; Brownson, 2014; Cohn, 2000; Keating, 2012; King, 2015; Maninger, 2008; Simons, 2001; Woodward & Winter, 2006). These argu- ments have typically been used to channel women into occupational specializations more suited to their abilities (Cohn, 2013, p. 5; Titunik, 2000, p. 231). However, the exclusion of women from certain roles, especially combat roles, is considered unfair and unjust for a number of reasons. Firstly, it perpetuates gender stereotypes that women are more suited to certain fields based on essentialist and stereotypical views. Secondly, it excludes them from serving in the elite jobs (most often associated with combat) that confer ‘‘more prestige, rewards and possibilities for faster rank advancement’’ (Archer, 2013, p. 367). However, this is but one dimension of the quest for gender equality in the military. For women to be accepted as equals, they need to not only meet the physical standards but embrace masculine values, norms, and behavior to be respected soldiers (Carreiras, 2010; Lopes, 2011). This typically requires them to suppress ‘‘undesirable’’ feminine traits such as being timid, submissive, tempera- mental, and fragile (Woodhill & Samuels, 2004, p. 18). Such traits are neither valued nor promoted in the military, as they run counter masculine traits such as dominance, Heinecken 205 aggressiveness, and toughness embodied in military culture. Such militarized mas- culinities are ‘‘highly functional in an organization whose raison d’eˆtre is combat. It is therefore unsurprising that those characteristics would be highly valued in military organizations’’ (Morris, 1996, p. 751). To be a respected soldier, male or female, these traits need to be suppressed. For women, this typically means diluting their femininity and assimilating masculine values (Carreiras, 2008, p. 175). Where this occurs, it runs counter to the ideals that underpin the broader political gender mainstreaming agenda, which advocates for more women to be included in the security forces based on the presumed (essential) difference between nurturing femininity and violent masculinity. The argument is made that certain desirable feminine qualities can enhance the success of peacekeeping missions, especially where they are required to engage with local populations affected by armed conflict (see Carreiras, 2010, p. 479; Hudson, 2000; Olsson, 2000; Puechguirbal, 2010). Typically, these include qualities such as being more compassionate,