1. bookAHEAD OF PRINT
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
10 Dec 2009
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Unpacking the Complexity of Gender Integration in the U.S. Military Using Discourse Analysis: The Case of Servicewomen’s Talk Around Having to Prove Themselves

Published Online: 17 Jun 2021
Page range: -
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
10 Dec 2009
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

A quasi-idiomatic expression ‘women have to prove themselves’ reflects various performance pressures and heightened visibility of women functioning in gendered professional spaces as advocated by tokenism theory. It is an example of how discriminatory practice – according to which competent and qualified women entering the culturally masculine professions are explicitly and implicitly expected to work harder for any recognition – gets discoursed in language and becomes a “rhetorically powerful form of talk” (Kitzinger 2000: 124).

This paper explores the question: what is it that U.S. servicewomen functioning in the culturally hypermasculine space need to do to prove themselves?

To this end, qualitative semi-structured interviews with women veterans of the recent Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are qualitatively scrutinized with the methods of discourse analysis and conversation analysis to 1) identify practices that U.S. servicewomen engage in to symbolically (re-)claim their place and status in the military, i.e., to prove they belong; 2) find out how the talk around proving emerged in the course of the conversation and how it was further interactionally sustained and/or dealt with in talk-in-interaction.

The findings of the micro-level analysis – interpreted through the lenses of tokenism and the category of the ‘honorary man’ – reveal women’s complex and nuanced struggle to fit and find acceptance in the military culture of hypermasculinity. They also re-engage with the ideas of tokenism by demonstrating that various acts of proving, reflecting women’s token status, may concurrently and paradoxically be a means to earn honorary man status.

Keywords

Antaki, Charles, Michael Billig, Derek Edwards & Jonathan Potter. 2003. Discourse analysis means doing analysis: A critique of six analytic shortcomings, Discourse Analysis Online 1(1).Search in Google Scholar

Archer, Emerald M. 2012. The power of gendered stereotypes in the US Marine Corps. Armed Forces & Society 39(2). 359–391. DOI: 10.1177/0095327X12446924Search in Google Scholar

Berdahl, Jennifer L., Marianne Cooper, Peter Glick, Robert W. Livingston & Joan C. Williams 2018. Work as a masculinity contest. Journal of Social Issues 74(3). 422–448. DOI: 10.1111/josi.12289Search in Google Scholar

Bonnes, Stephanie 2017. The bureaucratic harassment of U.S. servicewomen. Gender & Society 31(6). 804–829. DOI: 10.1177/0891243217736006Search in Google Scholar

Britton, Dana M. 2017. Beyond the chilly climate. The salience of gender in women’s academic careers. Gender & Society 31(1). 5–27. DOI: 10.1177/0891243216681494Search in Google Scholar

Brownson, Connie. 2014. The battle for equivalency: Female US Marines discuss sexuality, physical fitness, and military leadership. Armed Forces & Society 40(4). 765–788. DOI: 10.1177/0095327X14523957Search in Google Scholar

Carreiras, Helen. 2006. Gender and the military: Women in the armed forces of Western democracies. Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Collins Hill, Patricia. 2000. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd edn.). Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Connell, Robert W. 1987. Gender and power: Society, the person, and sexual politics. Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Connell, Raewyn. 2002. Gender. Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar

Crowley, Kacy & Michelle Sandhoff. 2017. Just a girl in the Army: U.S. Iraq war veterans negotiating femininity in a culture of masculinity. Armed Forces & Society 43(2). 221–237. DOI: 10.1177/0095327X16682045Search in Google Scholar

Denzin, Norman K. & Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2000. Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, Sage. 1–32.Search in Google Scholar

Disler, Edith A. 2008. Language and gender in the military: Honorifics, narrative, and ideology in Air Force talk. Cambria Press.Search in Google Scholar

Drew, Paul & Elizabeth Holt. 1988. Complainable matters: The use of idiomatic expressions in making complaints. Social Problems 35(4). 398–417. DOI: 10.2307/800594Search in Google Scholar

Dunivin, Karen O. 1991. Adapting to a man’s world: United States Air Force female officers. Defense Analysis 7(1). 97–103, DOI: 10.1080/07430179108405487Search in Google Scholar

Eckert, Penelope & Sally McConnell-Ginet. 2003. Language and gender. Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Enloe, Cynthia. 2010. Nimo’s war, Emma’s war: Making feminist sense of the Iraq war. University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar

Enloe, Cynthia. 2017. On feminist international relations, patriarchy, women’s transnational organizing and on militarization. Interview by Mila O’Sullivan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDsX2dl9hn0Search in Google Scholar

Epstein, Cynthia. 1981. Women in the law. Anchor.Search in Google Scholar

Foley, Meraiah, Sarah Oxenbridge, Rae Cooper & Marian Baird. 2020. ‘I’ll never be one of the boys’: Gender harassment of women working as pilots and automotive tradespeople. Gender, Work & Organization. AOP. DOI: 10.1111/gwao.12443Search in Google Scholar

Gardner, Rod. 2004. Conversation analysis. In Alan Davies & Catherine Elder (eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics, 262–284, Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9780470757000.ch10Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.Search in Google Scholar

Heinecken, Lindy. 2017. Conceptualizing the tensions evoked by gender integration in the military: The South African case. Armed Forces & Society 43(2). 202–220. DOI: 10.1177/0095327X16670692Search in Google Scholar

Herbert, Melissa S. 1998. Camouflage isn’t only for combat. Gender, sexuality, and women in the military. New York University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2010. Questioning in medicine. In Alice Freed & Susan Ehrlich (eds.), Why do you ask? The function of questions in institutional discourse, Oxford University Press. 42–68. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.003.0003Search in Google Scholar

Herring, Susan C. 2004. Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In Sasha A. Barab, Rob Kling & James H. Gray (eds.), Learining in doing. Designing for virtual communities in the service learning, Cambridge University Press. 338–376.Search in Google Scholar

Howard, John W. III & Laura C. Prividera. 2004. Rescuing patriarchy or saving “Jessica Lynch”: The rhetorical construction of the American woman soldier. Women & Language 27(2). 89–97.Search in Google Scholar

Howard, John W. III & Laura C. Prividera. 2008. The fallen woman archetype: Media representations of Lynndie England, gender, and the (ab)uses of U.S. female soldiers. Women’s Studies in Communication 31(3). 287–311. DOI: 10.1080/07491409.2008.10162544Search in Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation, John Benjamins. 13–31. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.125.02jefSearch in Google Scholar

Kanter, Rosabeth M. 1977a. Men and women of the corporation. Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar

Kanter, Rosabeth M. 1977b. Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology 82(5). 965–990. DOI: 10.1086/226425Search in Google Scholar

Kendall, Shari & Deborah Tannen. 1997. Gender and language in the workplace. In Ruth Wodak (ed.), Sage studies in discourse. Gender and discourse, Sage. 81–105.Search in Google Scholar

King, Anthony C. 2013. The female soldier. Parameters 43(2). 13–25.Search in Google Scholar

King, Anthony C. 2015. Women warriors: Female accession to ground combat. Armed Forces & Society 41(2). 379–387. DOI: 10.1177/0095327X14532913Search in Google Scholar

King, Anthony C. 2016. The female combat soldier. European Journal of International Relations 22(1). 122–143. DOI: 10.1177/1354066115581909Search in Google Scholar

King, Anthony C. 2017. Gender and close combat roles. In Rachel Woodward & Claire Duncanson (eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of gender and the military, Palgrave Macmillan. 305–317. DOI: 10.1057/978-1-137-51677-0_19Search in Google Scholar

Kitzinger, Celia. 2000. How to resist an idiom. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33(2). 121-154. DOI: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3302_1Search in Google Scholar

Lazar, Michelle M. 2014. Feminist critical discourse analysis: Relevance for current gender and language research. In Susan Ehrlich, Miriam Meyerhoff & Janet Holmes (eds.), Handbook of language, gender, and sexuality (2nd edn.), Wiley. 180–199. DOI: 10.1002/9781118584248.ch9Search in Google Scholar

Lester, Jessica N. & Michelle O’Reilly. 2016. The history and landscape of conversation and discourse analysis. In Jessica N. Lester & Michelle O’Reilly (eds.), The Palgrave handbook of adult mental health, Palgrave Macmillan. 23–44. DOI: 10.1057/9781137496850_2Search in Google Scholar

Mackenzie, Megan. 2015. Beyond the band of brothers. The US military and the myth that women can’t fight. Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Moore, Brenda L. 1991. African American women in the U.S. military. Armed Forces & Society 17(3). 363–384. DOI: 10.1177/0095327X9101700303Search in Google Scholar

Ostermann, Ana C. 2017. ‘No mam. You are heterosexual’: Whose language? Whose sexuality? Journal of Sociolinguistics 21(3). 348–370. DOI: 10.1111/josl.12240Search in Google Scholar

Pawelczyk, Joanna. 2011. Talk as therapy. Psychotherapy in a linguistic perspective. De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9781934078679Search in Google Scholar

Pawelczyk, Joanna. 2017. ‘It wasn’t because a woman couldn’t do a man’s job’: Uncovering gender ideologies in the context of interviews with American female and male war veterans. Gender and Language 11(1). 121–150.Search in Google Scholar

Perez, Alycia L.U. & Tatiana V. Strizhko. 2018. Minority representation, tokenism, and well-being in army units. Military Psychology 30(5). 449–463. DOI: 10.1080/08995605.2018.1482184Search in Google Scholar

Pomerantz, Anita. 1986. Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies 9. 219–229. DOI: 10.1007/BF00148128Search in Google Scholar

Potter, Jonathan. 1996. Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. Sage. DOI: 10.4135/9781446222119Search in Google Scholar

Prividera, Laura C. & John W. Howard III. 2014. Repealing the direct combat exclusion rule: Examining the ongoing “invisible war’” against women soldiers. Women & Language 37(1). 115–120.Search in Google Scholar

Reinharz, Shulamit & Susan E. Chase. 2001. Interviewing women. In Jaber F. Gubrium & James A. Holstein (eds.), Handbook of interview research. Context and method, Sage. 221–238. DOI: 10.4135/9781412973588.n15Search in Google Scholar

Rustad, Michael. 1982. Women in khaki: The American enlisted woman. Praeger.Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735. DOI: 10.2307/412243Search in Google Scholar

Sasson-Levy, Orna. 2003. Feminism and military gender practices: Israeli women soldiers in “masculine” roles. Sociological Inquiry 73(3). 440–465. DOI: 10.1111/1475-682X.00064Search in Google Scholar

Shaw, Sylvia. 2006. Governed by the rules? The female voice in parliamentary debates. In Judith Baxter (ed.), Speaking out. The female voice in public context, Palgrave. 81–102.Search in Google Scholar

Silverman, David. 2001. The construction of ‘delicate’ objects in counselling. In MargaretSearch in Google Scholar

Wetherell, Stephanie Taylor & Simeon J. Yates (eds.), Discourse theory and practice: A reader, Sage. 119–137.Search in Google Scholar

Sjoberg, Laura. 2010. Women fighters and the ‘beautiful soul’ narrative. International Review of the Red Cross 92(887). 53–68. DOI: 10.1017/S181638311000010XSearch in Google Scholar

Sjoberg, Laura, Grace Cooke & Stacy Reiter Neal. 2011. Introduction. Women, gender and terrorism. In Laura Sjoberg & Caron E. Gentry (eds.), Women, gender, and terrorism, University of Georgia Press. 1–27.Search in Google Scholar

Stokoe, Elizabeth. 2010. ‘I’m not gonna hit a lady’: Conversation analysis, membership categorization and men’s denials of violence towards women. Discourse and Society 21(1). 59–82. DOI: 10.1177/0957926509345072Search in Google Scholar

Stokoe, Elizabeth. 2012. Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies 14(3). 277–303. DOI: 10.1177/1461445612441534Search in Google Scholar

Sue, Derald Wing. 2010. Microaggressions in everyday life. Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Wiley.Search in Google Scholar

SWAN = Service Women’s Action Network. 2019. Women in the military: Where they stand (10th edn.). SWAN.Search in Google Scholar

Trobaugh, Elizabeth M. 2018. Women, regardless. Understanding gender bias in U.S. military integration. Joint Force Quarterly 88: 46–53.Search in Google Scholar

Walsh, Claire. 2001. Gender and discourse: Language and power in politics, the church and organizations. Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Weatherall, Ann, Maria Stubbe, Jane Sunderland & Judith Baxter. 2010. Conversation analysis and critical discourse analysis in language and gender research: Approaches in dialogue. In Janet Holmes & Meredith Marra (eds.), Femininity, feminism and gendered discourse, Cambridge Scholars. 213–243.Search in Google Scholar

Yoder, Janice D. 1991. Rethinking tokenism: Looking beyond numbers. Gender & Society 5(2). 178–192. DOI: 10.1177/089124391005002003Search in Google Scholar

Yoder, Janice D. 2002. 2001 Division 35 Presidential Address: Context matters: Understanding tokenism processes and their impact on women’s work. Psychology of Women Quarterly 26(1). 1–8. DOI: 10.1111/1471-6402.00038Search in Google Scholar

Yoder, Janice D. & Alycia L. U. Perez. 2013. Tokenism. In Vicky Smith (ed.), Sociology of work: An encyclopaedia, Sage. 884–886.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo