Toward a Democratic Military System

By Lulu / Winter 2020

The United States military can be characterized as a beacon of protection from domestic and foreign threats. Servicemembers put their lives on the line to defend the democractic values fostered by the United States and ingrained within our Constitution. Certainly, serving our country is a significant selfless commitment. To incentivize its servicemembers, the military provides benefits such as free tuition after service, a 401k retirement plan, and housing and food allowances. For many of us, those benefits are very valuable. In conjunction with the benefits, professional career training is provided through your chosen occupation. Just like many Americans, I enlisted into the military, specifically the Marine Corps, to serve my country and build a well-rounded career (and, of course, for the benefits). Entering the military was a pretty simple process; however, I’ll show you how its rigid structure limited myself, a woman, due to the implicit gender biases present. The structure of the military also limited some of my close friends who are a part of the LGBTQ community. But we were no different than any other American that wanted to enlist into the military to further their careers. The military structure can be compared to the American democratic system in that some groups of people, for example, are marginalized due to their race or socioeconomic status (Takaki 60). A person’s race or class status limits them from the start whereas others benefit from this system on account of their race and/or class. It’s contradictory in that it is anti-democratic. Unfortunately, just like the American system of democracy which is not demoratic for all, there are structural blemishes that plague the military with gender and sexual orientation discrimination.

Let’s start with my story: I am a woman and a former United States Marine. We are categorized as female Marines, not just Marines. Women are implicitly inferior to men in the military, especially in the Marine Corps. We are treated differently on account of our gender. We must work harder and longer to prove our worth. Some men will snicker at us frequently to let us know that we cannot keep up on hikes, shoot well, or survive in the field. Most of my time spent in the Marine Corps was a challenge to prove them wrong and that I am capable of everything they can do.

Throughout my enlistment, I held the job of an administrative assistant to a General. However, I wanted a combat role to expand my leadership skills and learn new tactics - something that would benefit my military career. Well, combat jobs were not available to women at the time. The Department of Defense (DOD) had instituted a memo, the 1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule, which allowed all servicemembers to be assigned to any job, except women could not hold ground combat roles (Vergun 1). Isn’t that plain gender discrimination in a federal memo? Anyway, one year into my service, I was told that the School of Infantry, an elite combat school, would be holding trials for women to undergo the same training that males did for combat jobs. I immediately volunteered and took the risk of enduring sixty brutal days among male Marines and two other females. We were scrutinized and discriminated against due to our gender.. Even after passing, we were criticized and told we did not belong there. Unfortunately, I got sent back to my administrative position because the trial was just that - a trial. The Marine Corps wanted to assess our capabilities and determine if we could keep up with the males. We could. They were just not ready for females in combat roles even though the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, rescinded the 1994 memo in 2015, a few months after I attended the combat school. When women could finally enter those roles, the Marine Corps was very unwelcoming. Combat positions were still male territory. To me, the whole military structure was appearing to be male territory.

Now, let’s see how the military restricts members of the LGBTQ community. A gay junior Marine in my unit, Ryan, who I presided over felt unsafe coming out and being himself. He feared hazing and judgement by his peers. He felt that if he came out, he would be treated differently by the straight males. Confiding in me, he vocalized his past of being brutalized in high school on account of his sexual orientation and did not want to face that in the military. He believed he needed to maintain a masculine, heteronormative image to fit into the Marine Corps. It was unusual to be gay in an institution where masculinity is treasured. Stereotypical masculine traits are strongly emphasized as the Marine Corps preaches that its servicemembers resemble warriors. Ultimately, Ryan decided to hide his sexual orientation throughout his enlistment. So, even though Ryan was able to enlist into the military and reap the benefits, he could not fully participate as himself. He knew he would face discrimination and harassment on account of his sexual orientation. The military framework was not welcoming to people like Ryan.

Unfortunately, these are the stark realities for women and members of the LGBTQ community in the military system. We encounter more challenges due to factors, like gender and sexual orientation, that we cannot change. All we yearn for is to have the same opportunities as those who benefit from the structure without the extra hassle. It’s even more challenging for those of us who are of a lower rank, so our voices get shut out and blurred by higher ranking individuals. Before we dive into how and why women and LGBTQ members have come to be marginalized in this system, we must understand the history surrounding the military structure and how it’s become dominated by masculine and heteronormative qualities.

Since the conception of the United States, the military has been at the forefront at defending our freedoms, protecting our citizens, and keeping our territory safe. The military is a core establishment within the United States that has been shaped by our federal government and the wars that have resulted. In the twentieth century, many foreign nations were crippled by the disastrous effects of World War II which led to the harmful beginning of American imperialism and expansion outward. In pursuit of instilling Western values globally, American defense spending increased dramatically, especially amid the Cold War crisis.

As Martin Luther King Jr. illuminates, the military evolved into a war machine throughout the late 1950s with nuclear capabilities that could wipe out entire countries (249). After the global devastation of World War II, one would think that the affluent United States may help contribute to peaceful international measures. Instead, the destruction of many foreign countries propped the United States into a great position to dominate the globe with its capitalistic endeavors (King 249). By indirectly ruling these broken nations, the U.S. was able to access land and resources for their own monetary gains. Ironically, although it boasts instilling democratic values in other nations, what the United States was doing to these foreign countries was clearly anti-democratic. Domestically, the United States was flourishing into a prosperous, consumer society during this time. As a result of increased military spending to sustain our global dominance and contain the Soviet Union, the domestic economy was thriving, blinding the American public of what was going on outside of its borders. It’s clear that after World War II American intentions were geared towards territorial gain, profitable resources, and dominating the globe with its nuclear capabilities. The justification for all of this was to contain the Soviet Union, but I believe there was another justification: to govern the entire world. In my opinion, I don’t see how that’s democratic at all. In fact, it appears that the public was blinded into thinking American imperialism was for national security measures. However, that seems like a convenient excuse for the government to justify its expansionist actions and continue to profit off of poor, unstable countries.

Evidently, American imperial endeavors after the end of World War II demonstrate the contradictions of its democratic aims. Rather than aid foreign nations during this time period and let them participate in a liberal international order, the United States acted in its own interests. For example, rather than aid in diplomatic measures in South Africa, the Kennedy Administration knowingly exploited the country for its resources. Martin Luther King Jr. notes that “we [United States] have been notoritously silent about the more than $700 million of American capital which props up the system of apartheid...,” that still plagues South Africa, all in the name of “democracy” (245). The U.S. prioritized territorial conquest by means of global authority in order to reap the benefits from the resources that these countries possess. Similarly, the military industrial complex was benefitting big business and the domestic economy at this time and more money means more happy elites.

What I’ve just described here - imperialism, materialism, and authoritarianism - are some of the masculine, or patriarchal qualities that drove the United States to act selfishly after World War II. The United States prioritized itself rather than the common good of the globe. This “democratic” attitude fostered by the federal government has had a profound effect on the structure of the military and still does today. The United States acting anti-democratically only perpetuates an anti-democratic military structure, the institution that enables the country to act in such an egregious manner.

Now that I’ve demonstrated the American history that contributes to the structure of the military, we can look into how and why women and LGBTQ members have become marginalized under this structure. The patriarchal qualities that drove the U.S. to act in its own interests throughout the post-war period have trickled down into the structure of the military. As evidenced through my story, there is a clear male-dominated, authoritative dynamic that echoes throughout the system which stems from gender roles. Western society maintains that males are typically the head of the household whereas women are the feeble nurturers responsible for taking care of the home. Gender roles have been socially constructed to organize our lives and allocate certain responsibilities to each member, male and female (Lorber 52). Society reinforces these roles beginning at a very young age that lead to gender expectations, such as how one dresses, speaks, and acts. As Judith Lorber concedes, one gender is constructed as dominant and the other as subordinate (57). Evidently, American culture preserves males as the dominant gender and women as the inferior gender. An intangible gender hierarchy has been ingrained within Western culture that venerates the man at the top and marginalizes the woman at the bottom. Masculine qualities, including territorialism, assertion, and greed are valued and thus instilled throughout society, as illustrated by American aims after World War II. This hierarchy has certainly bled into the structure of the military: women are inferior and incapable of achieving what a man does. Although women have been integrated into combat roles today, they are still unwelcome and discriminated against because, stereotypically, combat is not a woman’s place. Certainly, socially constructed gender roles could explain why women were barred from entering combat roles until recently and why there is such harsh criticism for women joining the men’s club a.k.a the Marine Corps.

Moreover, as I discussed earlier, American actions after the war articulate the U.S. as an international police power trying to instill their values globally. In addition to the binary gender roles, transgender and non-binary individuals blur the lines between male and female. Therefore, they don’t fit into the gender hierarchy and are marginalized even further. The military being such a rigid, black-and-white institution certainly did not know how to tend to the needs of the transgender and non-binary community. In fact, the 2015 United States Transgender survey found that 19% of transgender individuals either leave the military to avoid mistreatment or are administratively discharged due to their gender (Transequality 1). Certainly, the structure of the military does not welcome those who don’t fit the typical gender roles. To exarcebate the situation, the Trump Administration instituted a Transgender Military Ban in 2017 that restricts transgenders from entering the military altogether due to “medical costs and disruption,” (Human 1). Transgender and non-binary individuals aren’t even given the opportunity for entry in this institution, illuminating parochial Western ideals.

In addition to the gender hierarchy, Western society has also formulated an artificial sexual hierarchy that prizes heteronormative values and degrades homosexuality. Just as women are constructed as inferior within Western society, LGBTQ individuals have been constructed as an abnormal community. Thus, similar to society, the military was not welcoming to them. Heteronormative values have been institutionalized throughout this nation for centuries. On the other hand, homosexuality has been chastised. This negative attitude towards homosexuality “is rooted in our society’s most basis institution - the Patriarchal family,” illustrating how gender roles and sexuality overlap (Gay 175). Homosexual individuals clearly violate the gender and sexual norms, and that makes the rest of society uncomfortable. Unsurprisingly, the military structure highly values masculine qualities in conjunction with heteronromative qualities. Any deviation in that dynamic is considered peculiar, hence why my friend Ryan did not want to deviate from that norm. In fact, before 2011, gay or lesbian individuals would face discharge from the military if their sexual orietnation was revealed. That specific bill was known as Don’t Ask, Dont’ Tell. A Naval Commander, Craig Quigley, justified the bill as necessary since “homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous,” demonstrating an erroneous stereotype (Frank 65). I could understand why Ryan had refrained from revealing his sexual orientation in the military. He was fearful and he did not want to be subjected to any discrimination. How can a structure be democratic if it shames an individual on the basis of their sexual orientation? The fear Ryan felt in a highly respected American institution is nonetheless rooted within a constructed sexual hierarchy which treasures heteronromative values.

What I’ve just discussed above are some pretty significant obstacles that prevent us from solving this issue. However, there is still hope by way of creative solutions and ethical principles that could guide the way to a more democratic military structure. No one should feel inferior based on their gender or sexual orientation, especially when serving the country that is supposed to embody democratic institutions in correlation with its values. We all put our lives on the line for this country. So, we deserve the same opportunities. Martin Luther King Jr. referred to the Earth as a world house that all humans inhabit as a family (241). The Marine Corps is a house within that world house. Each person deserves to feel at home.

First, in order for the military framework to become more democratic, some cultural and structural changes must transpire. As evidenced by Ryan and I’s stories, the structure is not democratic for women and members of the LGTBQ community. Although we are able to enter the system without any issues, our mobility in the system is limited as a consequence of our gender and/or sexual orientation. So, the question then becomes what are we getting access to in a system that marginalizes us? We are getting entry into that system; yet, we cannot thrive considering the military treasures the deep ideologies of male supremacy and heteronormativity which are ingrained in Western society and culture. Such ideologies reinforce the gender and sexual hierarchies that are limiting our potential. Thus, the structure must be altered in a way that allows people like Ryan and I to thrive alongside those who benefit from the current structure. We must resist the current anti-democratic order.

I’ve been pondering the idea of how this structure could be manipulated for weeks since changing the structure of an enormous federal institution is quite ambitious. I was thinking on an operational scale - possibly more measures that incorporate more women and LGBTQ individuals. However, the military structure would still separate us from the rest if we only think operationally. We need to get deeper than that. Love. Love and empathy are the answer to changing the structure of this institution. The values of the individuals who relish the current structure must be changed, and they must wake up and see that we are all interrelated. Martin Luther King Jr. calls for a “world-wide fellowship” among all individuals where love is the driving force (253). Fostering an understanding that we are all interrelated could shatter the rigid hierarchies that limit opportunity for women and LGBTQ individuals. The very essence of co-existence, forgiveness, empathy, and love would revolutionize the military system, if not all of Western society. By fracturing the artificial divides that separate us, we could create a system that allows every individual to be themselves regardless of gender and sexual orientation. Everyone would have a voice. This, of course, would take time to infuse within the framework but that is okay. As long as we start to love and understand, we are inching closer to a democratic military system.

Second, I want to share some survival mechanisms that Ryan and I utilized during our time if structural and cultural changes are taking longer than expected to transpire. Personally, I was able to make some really good male friends who listened to the hardships I was enduring as a female in the Marines. They got me through the harassment by being there for me and letting me vent. They would stand up for me on some occasions. If someone discriminated against me based on gender, I would simply let them know that I was capable of getting the work done. I consistently had to reinforce the fact that my gender does not hinder my abilities to perform as a warrior in this institution. In addition, I grew close to a General I worked for who saw more than just a female in me. He saw my potential. He would always say, “I know you females have it rough here but that’s just how it’s always been. You need to change that.” I want to change that but I know I’ll need help from my fellow brothers and sisters. Furthermore, Ryan always told me that he hated having to hide his perky personality from everyone at work. However, he knew that he needed to survive in this institution and did not want to face any scrutiny. He made close, trustworthy friends who knew the truth about him. Besides that, he would seek guidance from the Chaplain and the psychological counselor on base. I know those two resources served him very well. Essentially, people like Ryan and I get by within the structure by being quiet and obeying our orders. Sometimes all one can do is survive until the time comes but “oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever,” (King 242). Merely just surviving and laying low is not ideal in an institution that disfavors certain groups but it will relieve some of the pressures.

The reason I write about the anti-democratic structure of the military is because I want you to be informed. You should be informed that a fine American institution is marginalizing certain groups, and you should know where that comes from - Western societal and cultural ideals. Nevertheless, the gender and sexual hierarchies that I’ve discussed are not only present within the military framework. They present themselves in various American institutions. The ideal patriarchal family is a cornerstone of American society and many don’t even question it. However, this ideal must be questioned to arrive at the root of the issues that trouble certain groups of people. The dominant ideologies such as male supremacy and heteronormativity must cease to exist. It will not go away on its own. We must work together to foster love and empathy among each other. We must work towards a revolution of values together. Only then will we be able to harness true democractic institutions that allow people like Ryan and myself to thrive despite our gender or sexual orientation. This is not simply a military problem, it is a problem that affects our society as a whole. That is why I invite you to take action by making this problem transparent. Start the conversation with a friend. Let us continue to take small steps forward to an enormous revolution of values.

Works Cited

Frank, Nathaniel. ​Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America​. Thomas Dunne, 2010.

Gay Liberation Front. “Manifesto.” (1971, 1978).

Human Rights Campaign. “Transgender Military Service.” Human Rights Campaign.

King Jr., Martin Luther.. “The World House.” ​Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?​ Beacon, 2010. pp.177-202. 1967.

Lorber, Judith. “Night to His Day: The Social Construction of Gender.” ​Paradoxes of Gender.​ Yale University Press, 1994.

Transequality. “Military Service by Transgender People.” ​2015 United States Transgender Survey, ​2015.

Vergun, David. “Secretary of Defense Rescinds 'Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule'.” ​Www.army.mil​, 7 Feb. 2013.