Conceptualizing the Tensions Evoked by Gender Integration in the Military

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 mainstream 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 physical (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 arguments 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, temperamental, 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 masculinities 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, affectionate, sensitive, peace loving, and tolerant (Woodhill & Samuels, 2004, p. 18). These qualities are alleged to give women a ‘‘female advantage,’’ which makes them ‘‘more effective than men in conflict resolution and decision making, even though they may be less effective than men in combat’’ (Goldstein, 2001, p. 41). This resonates with the argument made by Brownson (2014), where she advocates for the use of the term ‘‘equivalency’’ instead of ‘‘equality’’ to draw attention to the different strengths that men and women can bring to the organization in order to improve operational effectiveness. The problem with the ‘‘special contribution’’ and ‘‘equivalence’’ arguments are that they tend to reinforce gender stereotypes and ignore the specific challenges women face that affect their ability to function as ‘‘equals’’ or ‘‘equivalents.’’ These stretch beyond issues of physical capabilities and cultural aspects and relate more specifically to issues of sexuality and patriarchy embodied in the structures, cultures, and practices of the military (King, 2015). Even where women meet meritocratic standards and embody masculine norms and values, they still have to confront the negative effects of sexism and patriarchy. Brownson (2016) tends to negate these influences, but in highly patriarchal societies like South Africa, these continue to define and influence gender relations in the military. Typically, where women threaten the power relations of men, this evokes different forms of resistance beyond the blatant forms of discrimination that pertain to women’s exclusion from certain roles (Yoder, 1991, p. 184). In everyday life, this may include undermining women’s leadership or authority, subjecting them to increased scrutiny, sabotage, sexual harassment, social isolation, and even exclusion. These forms of gender and sexual harassment tend to be underreported by women for fear of ridicule, exclusion, and consequences of their careers (Pershing, 2003; Rosen & Martin, 1997). Ultimately, women in the military come up against a barrage of challenges that prohibit them from infusing alternative values based on their position in the society. The argument is made that women have different psychological and value orienta- tions, but that their voices are typically marginalized in male-dominated 206 Armed Forces & Society 43(2) organizations (Alvesson & Billing, 2009, p. 176). The only way to challenge this is for women to adopt a more assertive stance in order to influence organizational practices and decision-making. However, in the military, few are prepared to adopt a kind of militant femininity to assert their voice. According to Carreiras (2006, p. 181), this is ‘‘a risky strategy’’ as it may result in their ‘‘effective segregation, either imposed from the outside or self-induced.’’ The easier option is to stylize their behavior in accordance with the identity practices of the (male) combat soldier, which is associated with being aggressive, competitive, and insensitive. Where this occurs, military women are typically less willing or find it exceedingly difficult to move the military organization toward accepting a more androgynous military culture. Androgyny can only be achieved where there is a balancing of desirable female and desirable masculine traits which increase the range of skills and tasks an individual can perform irrespective of sex. According to Woodhill and Samuels (2004, p. 18), desirable female traits typically include being compassionate, soft-hearted, affectionate, sensitive expressive, peace loving, and tolerant. Undesir- able feminine traits, often emphasized in the military to exclude women, are those associated with being timid, mild, passive, submissive, modest, temperamental, and fragile. Desirable masculine traits include being clear-thinking, resourceful, ambi- tious, tough, practical, active, and courageous, where undesirable masculine traits are typically associated with being selfish, vindictive, indifferent, show-off, crude, aggressive, and hard-hearted. The latter are typically some of the traits associated with militarized masculinities but clearly not desirable where soldiers are expected to protect and engage with vulnerable populations in conflict zones.

Method These debates and issues are explored in relation to a study conducted among South African military personnel who attended a DOD Gender Conference in Pretoria, South Africa, from August 29–31, 2012. The data were collected by means of a paper–pencil survey, which used various items to measure attitudes toward gender integration and women in leadership positions. The questions were structured around four main themes. The first set of questions sought to solicit views on women’s suitability to serve in combat roles and whether military training should be integrated or not. These questions provided insight into how gender equality and meritocracy were perceived. The second set of questions strived to assess whether women’s unique contribution to peacekeeping is valued ‘‘equally’’ by men and women and what factors influence their optimal utilization on peacekeeping operations. This enabled one to judge the extent to which gender difference based on feminine traits was valued. The third set of questions explored issues relating to the effect of women on military culture and authority relations, and the last section strived to determine the extent to which women experience resistance and hostility. These questions enabled one to assess the extent to which women experienced Heinecken 207 resistance, which impacts on their ability to infuse alternative values and bring about a more androgynous military culture. The format of the questions varied depending on the nature of the topic. Where the objective was to ascertain the perceptions, values, social norms, or impressions of respondents, the questions were in the form of vignettes in order to assess how best they would describe their views. This pertained specifically to the questions about how they felt toward women serving in the various combat branches and questions relating to reporting of cases of sexual harassment. The remaining questions on women’s contribution to peacekeeping and effect on military culture were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale. At the end of the questionnaire, one open- ended question was included where respondents were requested to express what they thought were the main issues affecting the achievement of gender equality in the SANDF. Rich qualitative data were obtained in this way, which added meaning and context to the results obtained from the quantitative data. As such, a mixed-method approach has been adopted in the reporting of the findings. The survey was distributed to all personnel attending the annual DOD Gender Conference. The delegates either volunteered or were nominated by their command- ing officers to attend the conference. Approximately 220 members attended the DOD Gender Conference, of which a total of 156 answered the survey (response rate 71%). The profile of respondents is presented in Table 1. The sample is broadly representative of the different arms of service in the SANDF, except for the South African Navy, which is overrepresented. In terms of branch, 15% of those serving in the combat branches were women, which is reflective of the current status quo. In terms of rank, there is a sample bias toward the officer ranks. This is not necessarily negative, as it reflects the views of those in leadership positions that ultimately shape organizational culture. In terms of race, the profile broadly reflects the SANDF demographics. As this was a ‘‘gender’’ conference, women are overrepresented and presents a sample bias. However, important differences in attitudes between men and women are made throughout in terms of the reporting of the findings.

Gender Integration in the SANDF: Findings and Reflections Brief Background Gender relations within the SANDF2 changed with the adoption of a new Consti- tution for the Republic of South Africa in 1996, which forbids all forms of discrimination in terms of race, gender, and sexual orientation. This meant that the SANDF had to revise its policies that previously restricted the career paths of women. Accordingly, since 1997, women have been allowed to serve in the infantry, artil- lery, and armored corps in the Army, as well as in the Air Force as pilots, and in the Navy on ships and submarines (Heinecken & van der Waag-Cowling, 2009). Over the years, there has been an active attempt to increase the number of women across 208 Armed Forces & Society 43(2)

Table 1. Profile of Respondents.

Arm of servicea Army Air Force Navy SAMHS 39.4 16.0 19.3 16.7 Branch Combat Combat support Support Technical/other 22.1 7.1 55.0 15.8 Rank Officers Lt Gen–Brig Gen Lt Col–Col Capt–Maj Lt–Second Lt 6.6 29.0 25.1 4 NCOs SSg-W01 Cpl–Sgt CO–LCpl Civiliansa 15.2 7.2 4.3 8.6 Raceb African Colored Indian White 62.7 13.3 4.7 19.3 Gender Male Female 25.8 74.2

Note. Brig Gen ¼ Brigadier General; Capt ¼ Captain; CO ¼ candidate officer; CI ¼ Colonel; Lt Gen ¼ Lieutenant General; LCpl ¼ Lance Corporal; Maj ¼ Major; NCO ¼ noncommissioned officer; SAMHS ¼ South African Military Health Service. aCivilians serve in the Department of Defense in any one of the arm of services. They typically serve in the support functions in terms of branch and are predominately women. bIn terms of race classification in South Africa, Coloreds, Indians/Asians and Africans are collectively referred to as ‘‘Blacks.’’ These groups are often referred to as being ‘‘previously disadvantaged’’ based on the legacy of apartheid. What is important to note is that the South African National Defence Force is now predominately Black, with Whites making up a mere 11% of the full-time forces. all ranks and branches. Whereas in 1994, women made up 11% of the uniformed component of the SANDF, the numbers stood at 24% by 2015. While still clustered in the support branches, 19% now serve in the combat branches, including the infantry (DOD, 2015). The commitment to achieve gender equality is reflected in the DOD’s Gender Mainstreaming Policy. This policy states that:

the desired end state is the equal representation of women and men in all decision- making throughout the Department of Defence with the aim of effecting profound organizational and ultimately, societal transformation towards the realization of de jure and de facto equality between men and women. (DOD, 2008, p. 8)

This was based on the commitment given by government to adhere to various international conventions, such as the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrim- ination against Women, the Beijing Platform of Action, and United Nations Security Council (2000) resolution 1325. These politically driven pressures have obliged the Heinecken 209

SANDF to increase the recruitment of women to 40% and to 30% overall representation across all ranks and branches. While these targets have not yet been reached, South Africa is considered an example to the rest of the world in terms of the expanded roles of women and their number deployed on peacekeeping missions (Farrell, 2011).

Equal Opportunities and Meritocracy The SANDF typically manages gender integration from a strictly equal rights, gender- neutral perspective. Women receive the same training as men and there is no gender differentiation, except with regard to facilities and certain drill adaptations based on physiological differences (Heinecken, 2005, p. 86). Combat positions have been open to women for nearly two decades and while there is acceptance that women have the right to serve in these positions, this remains guarded. For example, although only 10% felt that the combat corps should be totally closed to women, most felt that they should not be compelled to serve in the combat branches but be given the option to volunteer (52%), while 39% indicated that no discrimination should be permitted. The fact that women should be given the volunteer option acknowledges gender difference and relates to women’s suitability to serve in these posts. Conforming to the standards or job specifications was the deciding factor influencing women’s acceptance in combat roles as reflected in the following comment by a female officer:

Whether you are male or female, as long as you can safely carry out your work without any special treatment, then you are in the right place. Changing standards of training, safety equipment, or deployment should not be influenced by gender, because people die in our business if we are treated as special, the enemy will not. Rebels don’t ask if you are a woman and do you have a ‘‘she bin,’’3 they shoot regardless.

Not surprisingly, most rejected the idea that training should be gender segregated (73%), although women (23%) were significantly more in favor than men (8%) that basic training should be gender segregated (p < .05). The main reasons cited for this were physical/biological reasons (86%), the impact on training standards (42%), fraternization (42%), and the retention of women (45%). The argument against segregated training was that this would lead to double standards. A female captain from the infantry stated:

Don’t change the standards for the benefit to fix numbers. Although some of us can do everything a man can do and better, rather advocate equal opportunities on a high level than equal opportunities on special developed standards.

While there was general support for a gender-neutral approach to gender integration, many held the view that double standards exist, as women are treated more softly. This was felt most strongly by men (66%) compared to only 36% of women 210 Armed Forces & Society 43(2)

Table 2. Effect on Fighting Spirit (Warrior Ethos).

Women Affect the Fighting Spirit of the Strongly Strongly Military Because ... Gender Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Disagree w2

They do not have the Male 13.2 31.6 15.8 31.6 7.9 p >.05 physical courage/ Female 4.2 18.8 9.4 49.0 18.8 bravery to fight like Total 6.7 22.4 11.2 44.0 15.7 men They do have the mental Male 8.1 59.5 2.7 24.3 5.4 p > .005 strength to endure Female 28.0 36.0 3.0 21.0 12.0 pain Total 22.6 42.3 2.9 21.9 10.2 Are emotionally able to Male 13.5 27.0 18.9 32.4 8.1 p >.05 deal with the horrors Female 12.4 49.5 20.6 15.5 2.1 of war (i.e., killing and Total 12.7 43.3 20.1 20.1 3.7 seeing people killed) They are less willing to Male 13.9 30.6 16.7 27.8 11.1 kill enemy forces than Female 6.3 24.2 26.3 33.7 9.5 men Total 8.4 26.0 23.7 32.1 9.9

(p < .001). Besides this, there were strong views on how women were perceived to affect the fighting spirit or warrior ethos of the military (Table 2). Although most felt that women have the courage and bravery to fight like men, which is a good indication of the attitudes toward women in combat, there were marked differences in opinion between men and women. Women were far more inclined to disagree that they lacked the physical courage/bravery to fight like men or lacked the mental strength to endure pain. There was also a significant difference in opinion regarding women’s ability to deal with the horrors of war, with women considering themselves far more capable of coping with this emotionally, compared to men. When it came to actual war fighting, the results were divided, but women considered themselves more able to kill enemy forces than men. This indicates that while there is acceptance that women are permitted to serve in combat, that women are still considered less suitable to serve in these roles.

Gender Difference and Alternative Values However, in recent years with the shift toward peacekeeping operations that require soldiers to engage with and protect vulnerable populations, there has been a call to have more women in the military (Willet, 2010). These arguments stem from the position that women have a special contribution to make to peacekeeping due to the way they have been socialized. Commonly associated claims are that women are more empathic, less aggressive, more open to negotiation, and less likely to behave inappropriately and are therefore a valuable asset on peace missions that involve the protection of the population.4 These typically include the possession of desirable Heinecken 211 feminine traits, as previously outlined by Woodhill and Samuels (2004) which make women (generally) more compassionate and conciliatory. Consequently, respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they support these essentialist claims about women and their contribution to peacekeeping. As reflected in Table 3, most agreed with the commonly held views that women make a valuable contribution to peacekeeping as they are less aggressive, more compassionate, and able to address sensitive issues such as gender-based sexual violence. However, there were significant differences of opinion on just how valued women’s contribution was. For example, women regarded themselves significantly more able to resolve conflict than men and far better at engaging with the local community (p < .001). The same applies to their ability to gather intelligence from the local population, where women felt far stronger than men that they are in a better position to do this than men based on their gender (p < .05). What these finding show is that overall women value their contribution to the military more highly than men. Although most recognized that women can contribute to peacekeeping operations in ways different to men, they felt that women face many challenges when deployed on peacekeeping operations. This affected the way they are utilized, often resulting in them being restricted to base because operations in the field were considered too dangerous and/or because the mission area could not cater for their specific needs. The latter referred specifically to issues of privacy and hygiene when out in the field. Others related to concerns over women’s safety, their vulnerability to sexual harassment and exploitation, and fear of rape which made commanders’ less willing to deploy them. There was also agreement that women experience more stress than men when on these deployments because of their responsibilities as mothers. What this shows is women are othered in ways that affect their status as soldiers and in turn reinforces militarized masculinities, gender ascription, and patriarchy. This has a bearing on how they were viewed in terms of their authority and leadership (Table 4). Women felt that men viewed them as less capable, that they were not promoted on merit, and that they are seen as tokens. Men were also more inclined to agree that women use their sexuality to obtain advantage in the system, while women strongly disagreed with this. What is evident from the results is that patriarchy embodied in culture affected authority relations and the acceptance of women in leadership positions. Many more women, for example, felt that they make good commanders compared to men (p > .00). Given these results, it is not surprising that few women in leadership positions are willing to adopt an assertive militant feminist position to challenge militarized masculinities and patriarchy. The easier option is to embrace masculine traits as expressed by a female Army Lt Colonel:

To be accepted as a competent leader, one has to lose one’s womanhood and act like a man to get noticed and heard, but women do not want to be like men, or do what men do. They want to be equally respected and utilized within their own capabilities, cooperating to give better end results, different roles, and contributions. 212 Table 3. Unique Contribution and Challenges in Peacekeeping.

Strongly Strongly Gender Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Disagree w2

Women make a valuable contribution to peacekeeping because they are ... Less aggressive Male 18.8 43.8 6.3 21.9 9.4 Female 23.4 54.3 9.6 7.4 5.3 Total 22.2 51.6 8.7 11.1 6.3 More compassionate Male 20.7 58.8 5.9 14.7 0.0 Female 38.3 45.7 7.4 6.4 2.1 Total 33.6 49.2 7.0 8.6 1.6 Better at resolving conflict (more conciliatory) Male 12.1 42.4 15.2 27.3 3.0 p <.00 Female 34.7 46.9 16.3 2.0 0.0 Total 29.0 45.8 16.0 8.4 0.8 More in touch with the needs of the local community Male 15.6 62.5 6.3 15.6 0.0 p < .001 Female 40.2 48.5 8.2 2.1 1.0 Total 34.1 51.9 7.8 5.4 0.8 Able to deal with sensitive issues such as gender based sexual violence Male 25.7 54.3 8.6 8.6 2.9 Female 47.1 44.1 5.9 1.0 2.0 Total 41.6 46.7 6.6 2.9 2.2 Likely to reduce the incidence of male peacekeeper misconduct Male 6.3 28.1 21.9 21.9 21.9 p <.05 Female 18.3 39.8 23.7 11.8 6.5 Total 15.2 36.8 23.2 14.4 10.4 Better at gathering intelligence from the local population Male 3.2 51.6 32.3 9.7 3.2 p <.05 Female 32.3 33.3 28.0 5.4 1.1 Total 25.0 37.9 29.0 6.5 1.6 Women experience challenges when deployed on peacekeeping operations because ... They are not utilized in meaningful roles when deployed (i.e., restricted to on Male 6.1 39.4 27.3 18.2 9.1 base) Female 20.9 35.2 20.9 17.6 5.5 Total 16.9 36.3 22.6 17.7 6.5 (continued) Table 3. (continued)

Strongly Strongly Gender Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Disagree w2

Operations outside base in the field are considered too dangerous for women Male 12.5 40.6 15.6 25.0 6.3 Female 14.3 38.5 20.9 17.6 8.8 Total 13.8 39.0 19.5 19.5 8.1 The facilities in the mission area do not cater for the specific needs of women Male 9.4 37.5 21.9 25.0 6.3 p <.05 Female 26.3 42.1 21.1 8.4 2.1 Total 22.0 40.9 21.3 12.6 3.1 Family stress on women is greater than for men because of their role as mothers Male 21.2 51.5 12.1 9.1 6.1 Female 28.4 40.0 9.5 15.8 6.3 Total 26.6 43.0 10.2 14.1 6.3 They are vulnerable to sexual harassment/exploitation by male soldiers Male 24.2 42.4 15.2 12.1 6.1 Female 30.5 37.9 11.6 16.8 3.2 Total 28.9 39.1 12.5 15.6 3.9 Commanders are afraid to deploy women because they fear they may be raped Male 15.2 30.3 27.3 18.2 9.1 Female 9.7 26.9 40.9 16.1 6.5 Total 11.1 27.8 37.3 16.7 7.1 213 214 Armed Forces & Society 43(2)

Table 4. Views on Authority Relations and Leadership.

In Your View, Women Affect Authority Strongly Strongly Relations Because ... Gender Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Disagree w2

They are viewed as less Male 8.3 30.6 5.6 47.2 8.3 p < .000 capable than men Female 20.0 55.0 5.0 11.0 9.0 Total 16.9 48.5 5.1 20.6 8.8 They are not promoted Male 5.6 30.6 19.4 38.9 5.6 on merit, but because Female 20.8 27.7 14.9 26.7 9.9 of their gender Total 16.8 28.5 16.1 29.9 8.8 They use their sexuality Male 5.4 27.0 24.3 32.4 10.8 to obtain advantage in Female 9.1 14.1 23.2 29.3 25.3 the system Total 8.1 17.6 23.5 29.4 21.3 When in leadership Male 0.0 13.9 22.2 55.6 8.3 p <.00 positions, they are Female 15.0 40.0 20.0 13.0 12.0 seen as tokens Total 11.0 33.1 20.6 24.3 11.0 Some cultures don’t Male 5.4 62.2 13.5 16.2 2.7 .062 accept women in Female 25.5 49.0 7.1 11.2 7.1 leadership positions Total 20.0 52.6 8.9 12.6 5.9 They make good Male 5.9 44.1 32.4 11.8 5.9 p <.00 commanders Female 37.4 47.5 6.1 6.1 3.0 Total 29.3 46.6 12.8 7.5 3.8

The above quote demonstrates the stress women face in having to dilute their femininity and the frustration of not being respected for the contribution they can make as women. What is evident is that women in the SANDF continue to face various kinds of gender and sexual harassment, but that this often goes unreported. Even those who indicated that they had experienced some form of sexual harassment, only 26% stated that they had reported the incident, because they felt that no action would be taken (17%), or that the complaint would take a longtime to process (49%). This has a negative impact on the morale and careers of women.

Discussion How does one make sense of these findings in order to explain the different tensions that gender integration evokes? Based on the literature and the findings of this study, four different but overlapping positions that affect gender integration in the military exist. These positions are fluid but are presented as ‘‘ideal types’’ in order to explain the findings in a more systematic way. Based on the work of Alvesson and Billing (2009) on gendered organizations and Carreiras (2008) on the dilemmas of gender integration in the military, an attempt is made to conceptualize these tensions. In Figure 1, reference is made to four different positions on gender integration, the principles that underlie each of these positions, the different adjustment strategies required of military women, and the implications this holds for women. Heinecken 215

Equal opportunities Special contribution Equal rights debates Differential debates Conformity Complicity Performance pressure Gender ascription Gender Gender Neutral Tension difference Meritocracy Alternative values Militarized masculinity Militant femininity Assimilation Assertiveness Diluted femininity Compromised androgyny

Figure 1. Four positions on gender integration in the military.

In terms of the equal opportunities position, what the findings of this study show is that while women are afforded equal rights, they are obliged to conform to existing standards. This is based on seemingly ‘‘rational’’ gender-neutral arguments that meeting the standards are necessary as ‘‘people die in our business if they are treated as special’’ and ‘‘rebels don’t ask if you are a woman, they shoot regardless.’’ Con- sequently, most rejected the idea of gender-segregated training, which means that women come under tremendous performance pressure to meet the standards where competence is measured on the basis of physical strength and endurance. Even where some women are able to compete and even beat men, they are still judged as being inferior where the visible ‘‘mass’’ of women is typically seen to be slower and less capable than men. This is accentuated where women are sent to branches such as the infantry corps to fill quotas and not selected based on their physical abilities. This creates tensions around issues of meritocracy, which are influenced by not only women’s inferior physical abilities but suitability to serve in certain posts based on cultural norms, practices, and values. As the findings of this study show, for women to be respected soldiers they need to assimilate and display masculine attributes and suppress their femininity (Koeszegi, Zedlacher, & Huudrisbusch, 2014, p. 230). Sasson-Levy (2011, p. 440) summarizes this aptly when she says that women have to ‘‘shape their gender identities according to the hegemonic masculinity of the combat soldier through three interrelated practices: (1) mimicry of combat soldiers’ bodily and discursive practices; (2) distancing from ‘traditional femininity’; and (3) trivialization of sexual harassment.’’ Where they have to dilute their femininity, it raises the question as to whether they are able to make a special contribution based on gender difference. While most believed that women do add value, this was rated far more highly by women in terms of their ‘‘unique contribution’’ to the military. There was another caveat that problematized this, which was that women’s contribution to peacekeeping was limited due to their roles as mothers, their sexuality, and possible victims of rape. By othering women in this way served to reinstate exclusory practices and served to justify why they should be confined to base. There are two potential 216 Armed Forces & Society 43(2) consequences of this. The first is that women may become complicit in accepting such exclusionary practices that differentiate them from men, where they are seen to be more suited to certain roles or where they should not be involved in activities that threaten their safety. The second is that where commanders use this othering to exclude women from certain roles, this serves to reinforce militarized masculinities and patriarchy, by framing women as vulnerable victims. Under these conditions, gender ascription is maintained and it becomes difficult to achieve equivalence. Another significant finding of this study is that even where 24% of the uniformed forces are women, this does not necessarily bring about a transformation in gender relations. As reflected in the views toward women’s effect on the warrior ethos, acceptance of their right to serve in combat does not erode deeply held beliefs about their suitability for such roles. Issues related to women’s physiology, femininity, sexuality, civilian roles as mothers, and vulnerability are intricately enmeshed within power relations that affect their status as soldiers (Howard III & Prividera, 2004; Welland, 2010). Added to this, where women are seen to disrupt militarized masculinities and threaten male hegemony, this often evokes resistance as reflected in the attitudes toward women in leadership positions and willingness to report instances of gender and sexual harassment. Under these conditions, few military women are willing to assert their voice and adopt a militant feminist stance in order to infuse alternative values. The easier option is to conform to and assimilate masculine forms of behavior or remain complicit in accepting their position in terms of their status within the military. Where this prevails women are unable to entrench alternative values necessary to engender a more androgynous military culture. This has implications not only for the achievement of gender equality and the ideals espoused in gender mainstreaming initiatives, but ultimately the effectiveness of military. This being said, what the South African case study does show is that gender norms are changing. There is now more acceptance that women have the right to serve in all positions as along as this is on merit, and that their contribution is recognized, albeit not valued equally. Although they are still struggling to be recognized as equivalents, they are now in a stronger position to prevent them falling in the past role traps. Nonetheless, women still tend to continue to conform and assimilate masculine values, not out of preference, but as a survival strategy. This affects their confidence, ability, and willingness to reform gender relations. To fully understand why this is so needs further research and requires one to delve deeper into the underlying power relations embodied in the military, the various substructures, occupational and professional categories, as well as the identities associated with this. The same applies to issues of race, class, and culture which all affect gender relations in the military.

Concluding Remarks Nonetheless, what this research has shown is that managing gender equality from a gender-neutral, liberal equal rights perspective does not bring about equality. This is Heinecken 217 because one cannot negate gender difference and expecting women to conform to and perform like men is inherently unfair. This lies at the crux of managing gender integration today, where armed forces are being compelled to recruit more women, precisely because they are different, but expect women to conform to and assimilate masculine norms and values. Gender equality cannot be achieved where masculinities continue to be privileged and where femininities are seen as antithetical to military culture. By merely fitting into the masculine organization and exchanging major aspects of their gender identity, without men having to ascribe to a similar ‘‘degendering project,’’ undermines gender equality and serves to this maintain the gender gap (Goldstein, 2001, p. 41). Much can be gained from changing ‘‘military culture from a masculinist vision of unalloyed aggressivity to an ungendered vision of combining aggressivity with compassion’’ (Morris, 1996, p. 751). This will free soldiers to engage in whatever behavior is most appropriate irrespective of their sex and gender. This requires embracing both desirable masculinities and femininities in order to develop an androgynous military culture more suited to military operations that require a people-centered approach to security. In recent times, it is particularly this need to accommodate alternative values, which is unsettling and ‘‘troubling’’ gender relations in the military.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material An accompanying podcast for this article is available at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ suppl/10.1177/0095327X16670692.

Notes 1. There is a proliferation of literature on this subject, but sources consulted for this study include among others (Carreiras, 2006; Cohn, 2000; Davids and Mckee, 2004; De Groot, 2001; Goldstein, 2001; Malesevic,ˇ_ 2010; Simons, 2001). 2. The forces that made up the new South African National Defence Force (SANDF) were as follows: the former statutory forces consisting of the South African Defence Force, the Transkei Defence Force, Bophuthatswana Defence Force, Venda Defence Force, and Ciskei Defence Force (collectively known as the TBVC forces) and the former nonstatu- tory guerrilla forces of the African National Congress, Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), and Pan-African Congress, Azanian People’s Liberation Army. Included later in the SANDF was the Kwa-Zulu Self Protection Force of the Inkatha Freedom Party. 218 Armed Forces & Society 43(2)

3. A she-bin refers to a bin placed in the toilets for women to place their sanitary towels when menstruating. This often elicits widespread laughter among men who change the pronunciation to shebeens, which refers to a place where men congregate to drink in the townships. 4. In terms of the claims about women’s unique contribution to peacekeeping see Davis & Mckee, 2004, p. 70; De Groot, 2001, p. 34; Pillay, 2006, p. 5; Sasson-Levy, 2011, p. 10.

References Alvesson, A., & Billing, Y. D. (2009). Understanding gender and organisations. London, England: Sage. Archer, E. M. (2013). The power of gendered stereotypes in the US marine corps. Armed Forces & Society, 39, 359–381. Brownson, C. (2014). The battle for equivalency: Female US marines discuss sexuality, physical fitness and military leadership. Armed Forces & Society, 40, 765–788. Brownson, C. (2016). Rejecting patriarchy for equivalence in the US military: A response to Anthony’s King’s ‘‘women warriors: Female accession to ground combat. Armed Forces & Society, 42, 235–242. Carreiras, C. (2006). Gender and the military: Women in the armed forces of western democ- racies. London, England: Routledge. Carreiras, C. (2008). From loyalty to dissent: How military women respond to integration dilemmas. In H. Carreiras & G. Ku¨mmel (Eds.), Women in the military and in armed conflict (pp. 161–181). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften. Carreiras, H. (2010). Gendered culture in peacekeeping operations. International Peacekeep- ing, 17, 471–485. Cohn, C. (2000). How can she claim equal rights when she does not have to do as many push-ups as I do? Men and Masculinities, 3, 131–151. Cohn, C. (2013). Women and wars: Toward a conceptual framework. In C. Cohn (Ed.), Women and wars (pp. 1–35). Cambridge, England: Polity Press. Davis, K. D., & McKee, B. (2004). Women in the military: Facing a warrior framework. In F. C. Pinch, A. T. MacIntyre, P. Brown, & A. C. Akros (Eds.), Challenge and change in the military: Gender and diversity issues. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Forces Leadership Institute. De Groot, G. J. (2001). A few good women: Gender stereotypes, the military and peacekeeping. International Peacekeeping, 8, 23–38. Department of Defence. (2008). Gender mainstreaming strategy, No 1 of 2008 (CHR/TMCD/ R/106/ dated July 2008). Pretoria, South Africa: Author. Department of Defence. (2015, May 21). South African National Defence Force transformation status. Briefing to the Joint Standing Committee on Defence. Cape Town, South Africa: Parliament. Farrell, M. (2011). Study of women in African militaries (SURVIAC: U.S. Africa Command/ J2/Knowledge Development Report). Alexandria: Department of Defense Information Analysis Centre. Goldstein, J. (2001). War and gender. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Heinecken 219

Heinecken, L. (2005). South Africa’s armed forces in transition: Adapting to the new strategic and political environment. Society in Transition, 36, 74–96. Heinecken, L., & van der Waag-Cowling, N. (2009). The politics of race and gender in the South African armed forces: Issues, challenges and lessons. Commonwealth & Compara- tive Politics, 47, 527. Howard, III, J. W., & Prividera, L. C. (2004). Rescuing Patriarchy or saving Jessica Lynch: The rhetorical construction of the American woman soldier. Women and Language, 27, 89–97. Hudson, H. (2000). Mainstreaming gender in peacekeeping operations: Can Africa learn from international experience? African Security Review, 9, 18–33. Keating, J. E. (2012). Where a women’s place is on the front lines. Foreign Policy. Retrieved July 23, 2014, from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/10/where_a_ womans_place_is_on_the_front_lines King, A. (2015). Women warriors: Female accession to ground combat. Armed Forces & Society, 41, 379–387. Koeszegi, S., Zedlacher, E., & Huudrisbusch, R. (2014). The war against the female soldier? The effects of masculine culture on workplace aggression. Armed forces & Society, 24, 266–251. Lopes, H. (2011). Militarized masculinity in peacekeeping operations: An obstacle to gender mainstreaming. Retrieved July 23, 2014, from http://peacebuild.ca/Lopes%20website%20 ready.pdf Malesevic,ˇ_ S. (2010). The sociology of war and violence. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Maninger, S. (2008). Women in combat: Reconsidering the case against the deployment of women in combat-support and combat units. In H. Carreiras & G. Ku¨mmel (Eds.), Women in the military and in armed conflict (pp. 9–28). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften. Morris, M. (1996). By force of arms: Rape, war and military culture. Duke Law Journal, 45, 651–781. Olsson, L. (2000). Mainstreaming gender in multidimensional peacekeeping: A field experience. International Peacekeeping, 7, 1–16. Pershing, J. (2003). Why women don’t report sexual harassment: A case study of an elite military institution. Gender Issues, 21, 3–30. Pillay, A. (2006). Gender pace and peacekeeping: Lessons from Southern Africa. Pretoria, Southern Africa: Institute for Security Studies. Puechguirbal, N. (2010). Discourses on gender, patriarchy and resolution 1325: A textual analysis of UN document. International Peacekeeping, 17, 172–187. Rosen, L., & Martin, L. (1997). Sexual harassment, cohesion, and combat readiness in U.S. army support units. Armed Forces & Society, 24, 222–223. Sasson-Levy, O. (2011). The military in a globalized environment: perpetuating an extremely gendered organization. In E. L. Jeanes,D.Knights,&P.Y.Martin(Eds.), Handbook of gender, work and organization (pp. 391–490). West Sussex, England: Wiley. 220 Armed Forces & Society 43(2)

Simons, A. (2001). Women in combat units: It’s still a bad idea. Parameters, 31, 89–100. Soeters, J., Winslow, D., & Weibull, A. (2003). Military culture. In G. Caforio (Ed.), Hand- book of the sociology of the military (pp. 237–254). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic. Titunik, R. (2000). The first wave: Gender integration and military culture. Armed Forces & Society, 26, 229–257. United Nations Security Council. (2000). Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from http://www.un.org/events/res_1325e.pdf Welland, J. (2010). ‘Feminine trouble’ and the (re)constitution of the militarised masculine subject. Political Perspectives, 4, 1–30. Willet, S. (2010). Introduction: Security council resolution 1325: Assessing the impact on women, peace and security. International Peacekeeping, 17, 142–148. Woodhill, B., & Samuels, C. (2004). Desirable and undesirable androgyny: A prescription for the twenty-first century. Journal of Gender Studies, 13, 15–28. Woodward, R., & Winter, P. (2006). Gender and the limits to diversity in the contemporary British army. Gender, Work and Organization, 31, 45–67. Yoder, J. D. (1991). Rethinking tokenism: Looking beyond numbers. Gender and Society, 5, 178–192.

Author Biography Lindy Heinecken is a professor of sociology at the Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology, Stellenbosch University.