Suchergebnisse

This article is a response to Anthony King's "Women Warriors: Female Accession to Ground Combat." King rightly asserts that the accession of women to combat roles is a notable historical departure in warfighting. He critiques Brownson's conceptual ideal of "equivalency" as a potentially profound force of transformation of gender relations in the military. While conceptually progressive, he errs in framing the potential transformation within the concept of "patriarchy." Further, King is unable to recast binary gendered language to acknowledge fully the concept of "kinship." For females to maximally succeed in the military, and particularly in combat roles, patriarchy as the defining explanation for male–female interaction must be discarded and the enabling concepts of equivalency and kinship must be embraced. The continued strength of military organizations and the individuals within them emerges from the reciprocity of these two concepts.

After decades of debate, a void still exists in the literature and socio-political dialog related to the unrestricted and unbiased inclusion of women in the military. The issue remains so highly charged that a fresh theoretical framework is necessary to accurately align the physical and social constraints in which military women serve. Offered here are findings of an exploratory study framed within a synthesis of evolutionary psychological and sociological theory. Distinction between the word "equivalent" as opposed to "equal" is critical in recognizing the physicality, skills, and talents both males and females bring to their Marine Corps experience. Qualitative data obtained from 67 female Marine Staff Non-commissioned Officers, Warrant Officers, and commissioned officers describe tactics to achieve levels of operational competency, respect, trust, and success in the Marine Corps. An achievable goal, the successful woman must manage her physicality, sexuality, and femininity adeptly to achieve the trust and confidence of her male as well as female colleagues.