¹University of Hawaii at Hilo

^*For their generous assistance with various aspects of this paper, I thank Todd Belt, Enbao Wang, and Susan G. Brown. My sister, Deborah Titunik, read an earlier version of the manuscript and made valuable editorial suggestions. The paper benefited from the incisive comments of the anonymous reviewers for Polity, for which I am also grateful. Any remaining errors are my own responsibility.

Abstract

The public debate about the incorporation of women in the U.S. Armed Forces has primarily included feminist-inspired critics, who denounce the hostility toward women they perceive is promoted in the military's masculinist culture, and, alternatively, opponents of the greater inclusion of women in the military, who valorize the exclusivist masculine qualities that many feminists criticize. Although these ideological adversaries differ in their estimation of military culture, they both share—and have reciprocally reinforced—a view of the military as steeped in the traditions and practices of aggressive masculinity. This article shows that the prevailing view of the military as hyper-masculine is misguided. Not unhindered aggressiveness, but camaraderie, discipline, and service are the qualities instilled in soldiers. These qualities foster military effectiveness and counterbalance sexist tendencies producing a complex institutional culture congenial to women in significant respects.