Suchergebnisse

In spite of the totalitarian rule the U.S. military has over soldiers' lives, many members of the armed forces find ways to confront and resist certain social and cultural principals and standards integrated into military policy, which undermine various groups' participation within the institution. This resistance challenges particular facets of military policy, specifically those associated with social stereotypes, without undermining the overall goals of the institution. Women are one such group who find themselves facing rules and regulations that demonstrate the military's ambivalent relationship with their service. The military has a hard time deciding on women's roles and place within the institution. While the Army has long since reconciled itself to the necessity of women's presence and participation (Manning 2005), and even fights to maintain or extend their current level of involvement (Jervis 2005), it still has not after all these years figured out how to successfully integrate women. The military continues to struggle with regulations regarding women's membership in the Armed Services. From hairstyles and uniforms to training expectations and physical standards, the official policies for women's participation in the military leave women under pressure to fit into an "Army of One" where the one is not female, nor does the Army know what to do with females. Complicating matters further are the social and cultural expectations of gender individual members of the military bring with them to their roles. Gender has thus become a matter of great ambivalence within the military; women are acknowledged as necessary, yet their presence complicates the military's mission of uniformity and also challenges the maintenance of a hegemonically masculine institution. While the contradiction present within this ambivalence leaves women precariously placed within the institution, female soldiers find ways to overcome the limitations placed on them based on their sex in order to succeed within the institution.

Prior to the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' (DADT) on September 20, 2011, many observers predicted that allowing lesbian, gay and bisexual troops to serve openly would harm the military, and a group of more than 1,000 retired general and flag officers predicted that repeal could 'break the All-Volunteer Force.' This study is the first scholarly effort to assess the accuracy of such predictions about the impact of DADT repeal on military readiness. We conducted our research during the half-year period starting six months after repeal and concluding at the one year mark, and we pursued ten separate research strategies including in-depth interviews, survey analysis, on-site field observations, pretest/posttest quasi experimentation, secondary source analysis, and a comprehensive review of media articles. Our goal was to maximize the likelihood of identifying evidence of damage caused by repeal, and we made vigorous efforts to collect data from repeal opponents including anti-repeal generals and admirals, activists, academic experts, service members and watchdog organizations. Our conclusion, based on all of the evidence available to us, is that DADT repeal has had no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions, including cohesion, recruitment, retention, assaults, harassment, or morale. If anything, DADT repeal appears to have enhanced the military's ability to pursue its mission. [Reprinted by permission; copyright Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society/Sage Publications Inc.]

Prior to the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) on September 20, 2011, many observers predicted that allowing lesbian, gay and bisexual troops to serve openly would harm the military, and a group of more than 1,000 retired general and flag officers predicted that repeal could "break the All-Volunteer Force." This study is the first scholarly effort to assess the accuracy of such predictions about the impact of DADT repeal on military readiness. We conducted our research during the half-year period starting six months after repeal and concluding at the one year mark, and we pursued ten separate research strategies including in-depth interviews, survey analysis, on-site field observations, pretest/posttest quasi experimentation, secondary source analysis, and a comprehensive review of media articles. Our goal was to maximize the likelihood of identifying evidence of damage caused by repeal, and we made vigorous efforts to collect data from repeal opponents including anti-repeal generals and admirals, activists, academic experts, service members and watchdog organizations. Our conclusion, based on all of the evidence available to us, is that DADT repeal has had no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions, including cohesion, recruitment, retention, assaults, harassment, or morale. If anything, DADT repeal appears to have enhanced the military's ability to pursue its mission.