Sexual Harassment and Discrimination in the Military

Women in the U.S. military have always had a "tough row to hoe"; those women who literally broke ground, opened doors, and made the choice of a military career easier for those who followed, were the beginning. Today the fight is continuing. Inequality and sexual harassment towards women continues to persist, because the militaryÐŽ¦s leadership when faced with the option of ill repute or justice ignores justice.

Women deserve fair treatment, a non-hostile environment, and a chance to further their careers on an equal footing with man. The fact that harassment, discrimination, and sexual assaults are still occurring in our esteemed military in such numbers is appalling. The militaryÐŽ¦s overall treatment, lack of respect in handling sexual harassment accusations and the repeated cover-ups of sexual harassment/assault crimes committed by generals is a national disgrace. Nonetheless, we can only make reparation for past injustices, plan to prevent them from occurring again, and hope that tomorrow will be better than yesterday.

To make tomorrow better than yesterday The Uniform code of Military Justice needs a complete overhauled. Last updated in 1983, the code is lacking any mention of the term sexual harassment. Thought this is a startling realization to us civilians, it is total normal for the military. Sexual harassment, though not mentioned in the code, is a crime under Article 134; ÐŽ§Article 134 is the catch-all of this nationÐŽ¦s military justice system, a compendium of 55 offenses that the armed forces say are prejudicial to good order and discipline or likely to bring discredit on the serviceЎЁ(Gross-JusticeÐŽK). Article 134 establishes an extremely high standard of conduct to maintain an orderly fighting force and prevent abuses of power in a hierarchical system where men and women live and work together 24 hours a day.

Sexual harassment is an offense committed by both females and males in assorted measures; it is predominately committed by males against females. It can ÐŽ§occur in a variety of circumstancesÐŽKsome examples include: sexual insults, whistling, catcalls, pressure for sexual activity, [seeing girly magazines] and pinchingЎЁ(FactsÐŽK). Very simply, sexual harassment is any unwanted and unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature that creates a hostile work environment; usually engaged in by co-worker or supervisor, which renders the workplace atmosphere intimidating, offensive and can/will interfere with work performance and group cohesion.

ÐŽ§Sexual harassment is an important issue and should not be taken lightly; on the other hand, it should not be taken out of control eitherЎЁ(FactsÐŽK). The military is full of political correctness. Soldiers and officers constantly have to watch what they say. For instance, a common line heard describing this atmosphere of political correctness is, "I can't talk to this other person if this other person is of a different culture or a different sex. I'm very uncomfortable." This is usually the case because what is harassment to one person is a joke to another.

WomenÐŽ¦s experiences with inequality have been similar to those of black men; their integration into the military has also differed in several ways. Because of our societyÐŽ¦s fundamental belief that going to war is a manÐŽ¦s job, men from minority groups have often been accepted more readily in the military than women.

Women have been viewed as outsiders in this male environment. Discrimination and harassment occurs for women because they are entering an all male dominated area. Some areas are still restricted because of it. For example: serving in direct combat capacities such as infantry, and Special ForcesÐŽXis limited to men. Though this policy is rational in light of one, the physical handicaps of women; and two, the image of sending women home in body bags, which no U.S. senator wants too take credit for. Even so, this gender bias is a discriminatory policy, and a limiting of opportunities for women. If women ÐŽ§don't get the same opportunities to go out and compete,ЎЁ as men do, then theyÐŽ¦ll have a much less chance of reaching a senior leadership position (generals); which are usually drawn from combat hardened/experienced officers (Baxter). ÐŽ§By precluding women from the core functions of the military, they define women as marginal service members, thereby fostering sexual harassment [and discrimination]ЎЁ(Tailhook Incident 92).

In 1994, the annual Navy wide Personnel Survey included questions on womenÐŽ¦s role for the first time. Some 65 percent of officers and almost 50 percent of enlisted respondents said they did not think women were fully accepted in combat roles. While approximately 80 percent said harassment was not tolerated at their command, almost half of all respondents disagreed that everyone is treated equally in promotions and advancements.

Some of this is based on the presumed physical and psychological characteristics of women, which may interfere with their performances in combat rich situations. For example: the physical strength of women. People believe that women are not strong enough to lift and carry heavy equipment or wounded fellow soldiers and that they lack endurance to perform these tasks over a lengthened period. In addition, there is the idea that women cannot perform strenuous tasks quickly, like loading heavy shells into a weapon. Moreover, combat is not for the weak and slow. Although allowing women in combat remains a top priority, women are now serving in virtually every other occupational capacity in all four branches of the military.

Even though women are restricted from direct hand-to-hand combat positions, their prospects are growing by the day. A large number of previously restricted areas to women have been opened in the Army, Marine Corps, and the Air Force. Even the Navy is improving, which is a shock on its own. (Side note: Today in the Navy ÐŽ§all ships are open to women except submarines and Coastal Patrol shipsЎЁ, -because submarines and Coastal Patrol ships are lacking habitability for women (Women in the Navy).) Even with increasing sexual harassment/assault/ and discrimination (S.H.A.D.) cases, the rising number of women being recruited is not due to any idealistic vision of the right of women to serve their country in uniform. One might say this trend is driven by the need to recruit an increasingly intelligent, well-educated, and fit military in the face of data that reflects the shrinking amount of qualified male candidates.

Then again, Marine Corps recruiter, C. J. Chivers feels that by ÐŽ§1993, in the wake of the Tailhook scandal, the military was desperate to show that it could shed sexism. In recruiting, this translated into hiring as