Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T04:44:11.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender Integration in the Military: A Rawlsian Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Mark N. Jensen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Following the recent decisions by Western militaries to pursue greater integration of women into combat roles, this paper examines the principles that motivate integration and organizes them into a theoretically coherent scheme that could serve as a roadmap for policymakers as they rebuild military institutions and their combat units in an integrated fashion. The strategy of the paper is Rawlsian: the right relationship between the principles that motivate integration can be derived through an application of Rawls's methodology as described in A Theory of Justice. The result is a lexically ordered set of principles that begin with gender‐blind equal opportunity but permit adjustments that take gender into account when these adjustments serve the interests of military institutions. The paper concludes with a discussion of two concerns, one practical and one theoretical, that one might have about the account.

Type
Articles
Information
Hypatia , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , Fall 2016 , pp. 844 - 857
Copyright
Copyright © Published 2016. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alfonso, Lieutenant Colonel Kristal L. 2010. Femme fatale 2010. Air and Space Power Journal 24 (3): 59–73.Google Scholar
Henning, Julia. 2013. Army studying female combat integration. Military.com. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/07/29/army-studying-female-combat-integration.html?comp=7000023468004&rank=1 (accessed July 29, 2013).Google Scholar
Jehn, Karen A., Northcraft, Gregory B., and Neale, Margaret A. 1999. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Sciences Quarterly 44 (4): 741–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McSally, Colonel Martha. 2007. Women in combat: Is the current policy obsolete? Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy 14 (2/7): 1011–60.Google Scholar
New York Times. 2013. Women have long served in combat roles. New York Times. http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/women-have-always-served-in-combat-roles/?_r=0 (accessed July 30, 2013).Google Scholar
Page, Scott E. 2011. Diversity and complexity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1999a. The idea of public reason revisited. In The law of the peoples. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1999b. A theory of justice, revised edition. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Matthew, and Philipps, Dave. 2015. All combat roles now open to women, defense secretary says. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/politics/combat-military-women-ash-carter.html?_r=0 (accessed March 7, 2016).Google Scholar
Starr, Barbara. 2011. New frontier for military women: Serving with an elite unit. CNN. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-03/us/us_women-special-forces_1_afghan-women-special-forces-military-women?_s=PM:US (accessed November 29, 2011).Google Scholar
Steel, Claude. 2010. Whistling Vivaldi: How stereotypes affect us and what we can do. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar