This study examines reader responses to opinion editorials about women in combat and contributes to the literature on women in the military by explaining how contests over sex–gender essentialism and diversity underlie public debates about individual rights and military effectiveness. Comments in favor of women’s ground combat exclusion use a logic of averages to promote essentialist thinking about men and women. They categorize women as inferior soldiers and argue that desegregation puts individual soldiers and the nation at risk. Conversely, comments in favor of integration advance a view of sex–gender diversity that places men and women along a continuum with overlapping qualities, suggesting further that giving exceptional women the freedom to serve in ground combat will advance both equality and military readiness. We argue that public commentary about women in combat concerns more than the military, underlying this discourse are distinct conceptions and expectations of men and women.
BachnerJ.HillK. W. (2014). Advances in public opinion and policy attitudes research. Policy Studies Journal, 42, S51–S70.
4.
BraggR. (2003). I am a soldier, too: The Jessica Lynch story. New York, NY: Vintage.
5.
BrowneK. (2007). Co-ed combat: The new evidence that women shouldn’t fight the nation’s wars. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
6.
BrownsonC. (2014). The battle for equivalency: Female U.S. Marines discuss sexuality, physical fitness, and military leadership. Armed Forces & Society, 40, 765–788.
7.
BrownsonC. (2015). Lady leathernecks. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
CharonJ. M. (2009). Ten questions: A sociological perspective. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
10.
ConeR. (2015). Women on the battlefield: Integrating women into the U.S. Military. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association, Chicago, IL.
11.
CromptonR.LyonetteC. (2005). The new gender essentialism—Domestic and family ‘choices’ and their relation to attitudes. The British Journal of Sociology, 56, 601–620.
12.
DeBruyneN. F.LelandA. (2015). American war and military operations casualties: Lists and statistics (7-5700 RL32492). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
13.
DeutschF. M. (2007). Undoing gender. Gender & Society, 21, 106–127.
14.
DickK. (Writer). (2012). The invisible war [Motion Picture]. Sausalito, CA: Roco Films Educational.
EgnellR. (2013). Women in battle: Gender perspectives and fighting. Parameters, 43, 33–41.
17.
FirestoneJ. (1992). Occupational segregation: Comparing the civilian and military work force. Armed Forces & Society, 19, 363–381.
18.
GoldmanN. L. (1982). Female soldiers—Combatants or noncombatants? Historical and contemporary perspectives (Vol. 3). Westport, CT: Praeger Pub Text.
19.
HerbertM. S. (1994). Feminism, militarism, and attitudes toward the role of women in the military. Feminist Issues, 14, 25–48.
20.
HerringS.Job-SluderK.SchecklerR.BarabS. (2002). Searching for safety online: Managing “trolling” in a feminist forum. The Information Society, 18, 371–384.
21.
HugheyM. (2012). Show me your papers! Obama’s birth and the whiteness of belonging. Qualitative Sociology, 35, 163–181.
22.
KamarckK. N. (2015). Women in combat: Issues for congress (7-5700 R42075). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
23.
KellyJ. W.FisherD.SmithM. (2006). Friends, foes, and fringe: Norms and structure in political discussion networks. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2006 International Conference on Digital Government Research, San Diego, CA.
24.
KingA. C. (2015). Women warriors: Female accession to ground combat. Armed Forces & Society, 41, 379–387.
25.
KnowlesR. (2014). The intertwined fates of affirmative action and the military. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 45, 1027–1084.
26.
LamontM.MolnarV. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167–195.
27.
LinsteadS.PullenA. (2006). Gender as multiplicity: Desire, displacement, difference and dispersion. Human Relations, 59, 1287–1310.
28.
LundquistJ. H. (2008). Ethnic and gender satisfaction in the military: The effect of a meritocratic institution. American Sociological Review, 73, 477–496.
29.
MacKenzieM. (2015). Beyond the band of brothers: The U.S. military and the myth that women can’t fight. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
30.
MaginnisR. L. (2013). Deadly consequences: How cowards are pushing women into combat. Washington, DC: Regnery.
31.
ManosevitchE.WalkerD. (2009). Reader comments to online opinion journalism: A space of public deliberation. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Online Journalism.
32.
MasseyD. S. (2007). Categorically unequal: The American stratification system. Thousand Oaks, CA: Russell Sage Foundation.
33.
MathersJ. G. (2013). Women and state military forces. In CohnC. (Ed.), Women and wars (pp. 124–145). Malden, MA: Polity Press.
34.
MazuranaD. (2013). Women, girls, and non-state armed opposition groups. In CohnC. (Ed.), Women and wars (pp. 146–168). Malden, MA: Polity Press.
35.
McSallyM. (2007). Women in combat: Is the current policy obsolete?Duke J. Gender L. & Pol’y, 14, 1011.
36.
McSallyM. E. (2011). Defending America in mixed company: Gender in the U.S. Armed Forces. Daedalus, 140, 148–164.
37.
MillerL. L. (1998). Feminism and the exclusion of army women from combat. Gender Issues, 16 (3), 33–64.
MitchellB. (1998). Women in the military: Flirting with disaster. Washington, DC: Regnery.
40.
MoskosC. C. (1988). Institutional and occupational trends in Armed Forces. In CharlesF. R. W.MoskosC. (Ed.), The military, more than just a job (pp. 15–26). Washington, DC: Pergamon-Brassey’s.
ReskinB. (1993). Sex segregation in the workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 241–270.
46.
RollinsA. (2012). Act like a lady! Reconsidering gender stereotypes and the exclusion of women from combat in the light of challenges to “don’t ask, don’t tell.”Southern Illinois University of Law Journal, 36, 355–365.
47.
SantanaA. D. (2015). Incivility dominates online comments on immigration. Newspaper Research Journal, 36, 92–107.
48.
SegalM. W. (1995). Women’s military roles cross-nationally past, present, and future. Gender & Society, 9, 757–775.
49.
SegalM. W.HansenA. F. (1992). Value rationales in policy debates on women in the military: A content analysis of congressional testimony, 1941-1985. Social Science Quarterly, 73, 296–309.
SilvaJ. M. (2008). A new generation of women? How female ROTC cadets negotiate the tension between masculine military culture and traditional femininity. Social Forces, 87, 937–960.
52.
SjobergL.GentryC. E. (2007). Mothers, monsters, whores: Women’s violence in global politics. London, England: Zed Books.
53.
SnyderR. C. (2003). The citizen-soldier tradition and gender integration of the U.S. Military. Armed Forces & Society, 29, 185–204.
54.
StephensS. M. (2013). What happens next? Will protection against gender identity and sexual orientation workplace discrimination expand during President Obama’s second term?Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice, 19, 365–396.
55.
SunsteinC. R. (2008). Neither Hayek nor Habermas. Public Choice, 134, 87–95.
56.
TillyC. (1999). Durable inequality. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
57.
TitunikR. F. (2000). The first wave: Gender integration and military culture. Armed Forces & Society, 26, 229–257.
58.
UdryR. (2000). Biological limits of gender construction. American Sociological Review, 65, 443–457.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1998). Gender issues: Changes would be needed to expand selective service to women (GAO/NSIAD-98-199). Washington, DC: Author.
63.
van CreveldM. (2000). The great illusion: Women in the military. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 29, 429–442.
WestbrookL.Schiltk. (2014). Transgender people, gender panics, and the maintenance of the sex/gender/sexuality system. Gender and Society, 28, 32–57.
66.
WilcoxC. (1992). Race, gender, and support for women in the military. Social Science Quarterly, 73, 310–323.
67.
WilliamsC. (1995). Still a man’s world: Men who do women’s work. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
