[
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).10.5565/rev/athenea.64
]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: 10.1177/0095327X1244692410.1177/0095327X12446924
]Search 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.1228910.1111/josi.12289
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bonnes, Stephanie 2017. The bureaucratic harassment of U.S. servicewomen. Gender & Society 31(6). 804–829. DOI: 10.1177/089124321773600610.1177/0891243217736006
]Search 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: 10.1177/089124321668149410.1177/0891243216681494
]Search 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: 10.1177/0095327X1452395710.1177/0095327X14523957
]Search 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: 10.1177/0095327X1668204510.1177/0095327X16682045
]Search 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: 10.2307/80059410.2307/800594
]Search 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: 10.1080/0743017910840548710.1080/07430179108405487
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Eckert, Penelope & Sally McConnell-Ginet. 2003. Language and gender. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791147
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Enloe, Cynthia. 2010. Nimo’s war, Emma’s war: Making feminist sense of the Iraq war. University of California Press.10.1525/9780520945951
]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=eDsX2dl9hn0
]Search 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.1244310.1111/gwao.12443
]Search 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.ch1010.1002/9780470757000.ch10
]Search 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: 10.1177/0095327X1667069210.1177/0095327X16670692
]Search 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/9780195306897.003.000310.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.003.0003
]Search 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: 10.1080/07491409.2008.1016254410.1080/07491409.2008.10162544
]Search 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.125.02jef10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
]Search 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: 10.1086/22642510.1086/226425
]Search 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). 13–25.10.55540/0031-1723.2892
]Search in Google Scholar
[
King, Anthony C. 2015. Women warriors: Female accession to ground combat. Armed Forces & Society 41(2). 379–387. DOI: 10.1177/0095327X1453291310.1177/0095327X14532913
]Search in Google Scholar
[
King, Anthony C. 2016. The female combat soldier. European Journal of International Relations 22(1). 122–143. DOI: 10.1177/135406611558190910.1177/1354066115581909
]Search 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_1910.1057/978-1-137-51677-0_19
]Search 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_110.1207/S15327973RLSI3302_1
]Search 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.ch910.1002/9781118584248.ch9
]Search 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_210.1057/9781137496850_2
]Search 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.10.1017/CBO9781107279155
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Moore, Brenda L. 1991. African American women in the U.S. military. Armed Forces & Society 17(3). 363–384. DOI: 10.1177/0095327X910170030310.1177/0095327X9101700303
]Search 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.1224010.1111/josl.12240
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pawelczyk, Joanna. 2011. Talk as therapy. Psychotherapy in a linguistic perspective. De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/978193407867910.1515/9781934078679
]Search 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). 121–150.10.1558/genl.26348
]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: 10.1080/08995605.2018.148218410.1080/08995605.2018.1482184
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pomerantz, Anita. 1986. Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies 9. 219–229. DOI: 10.1007/BF0014812810.1007/BF00148128
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Potter, Jonathan. 1996. Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. Sage. DOI: 10.4135/978144622211910.4135/9781446222119
]Search 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.n1510.4135/9781412973588.n15
]Search 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: 10.2307/41224310.2307/412243
]Search 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.0006410.1111/1475-682X.00064
]Search 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 Margaret 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/S181638311000010X10.1017/S181638311000010X
]Search 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: 10.1177/095792650934507210.1177/0957926509345072
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Stokoe, Elizabeth. 2012. Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies 14(3). 277–303. DOI: 10.1177/146144561244153410.1177/1461445612441534
]Search 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: 10.1177/08912439100500200310.1177/089124391005002003
]Search 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: 10.1111/1471-6402.0003810.1111/1471-6402.00038
]Search 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
