Nora R. pointed out a Navy Facebook page that presents female members of the Navy as ground-breaking women who redefine femininity. The photo:
Here’s the text below the photo:
Applauding women who define life on their own terms. Intermingling the stereotypically feminine and masculine. Women in the Navy are amongst those paving the way in redefining femininity in the 21st Century.
I think it’s fascinating that they refer to feminine and masculine characteristics as stereotypes, rather than simply saying they mix feminine and masculine traits (thus accepting them as meaningful categories).
I went over to the Navy page on women from Facebook. Another image:
Some text from that webpage, which again emphasizes equality, empowerment, and the idea that ideas about gender are stereotypes, not accurate beliefs:
What’s it like being a woman in today’s Navy? Challenging. Exciting. Rewarding. But above all, it’s incredibly empowering. That’s because the responsibilities are significant. The respect is well-earned. The lifestyle is liberating. And the chance to push limits personally and professionally is an equal opportunity for women and men alike.
The notion of a “man’s work” is redefined in the Navy. Stereotypes are overridden by determination, by proven capabilities and by a shared appreciation for work that’s driven by hands-on skills and adrenaline. Here, a woman’s place is definitely in on the action. And women who seek to pursue what some may consider male-dominated roles are not only welcome, they’re wanted – in any of dozens of dynamic fields.
Besides equal pay for equal work, you can also look forward to the opportunity for personal development in the Navy. Take advantage of the chance to learn, grow, advance, serve and succeed right beside male counterparts – sharing the same duties and the same respect.
Farther down there’s this paragraph:
Spending time with family and friends. Going shopping. Getting all dressed up for a night out. As a woman, you’ll find there’s ample time for all of that in the Navy. Time when you’re off-duty. Time for the everyday things and the “girly stuff.” What you do as a woman in uniform may not be considered typical, but the life you lead outside of that can be as normal as you want.
I think the message there is partially that you don’t have to give up all the things associated with femininity if you’re in the Navy, but also the implication is that in the Navy you’ll be empowered and liberated to break stereotypes that you won’t be able to do as much in the outside world, where you may want to act more “normal.”
We’ve posted before about the use of female empowerment to sell products (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). In all of those instances, liberty or empowerment comes through simply consuming the right thing, whether it’s Virginia Slims, a better cleaning product, or a pre-packaged food item. It’s a completely superficial use of the idea of women’s liberation. In this Navy campaign, however, some very real advantages are promised: equal pay for equal work, respect, equal opportunity at work, the ability to enter “what some may consider” male-dominated fields.
Of course, that doesn’t mean all of these things happen. For instance, the Navy can say women are welcomed into male-dominated roles; that doesn’t mean the male soldiers are going to be thrilled and welcoming. After all, 26 female Navy members reported being sexually assaulted by fellow sailors in 1991. But the book The American Woman 2001-2002 lists the Navy as the branch of the military with the second-lowest levels of gender discrimination (after the Air Force; not surprisingly, the worst branch is the Marines) and says that after the 1991 Tailhook incident the Navy undertook major efforts to deal with gender discrimination. According to the book the Navy has “the largest number of women moving into nontraditional occupations” (p. 163). Women are allowed on combat vessels, while the Army still does not allow women in combat positions.
I don’t know. I have to say, this seems to be more of a sincere effort to recruit women by focusing on equality and skills than most I’ve seen, in which empowerment is depicted as taking on “masculine” roles or characteristics, and in which the idea that they are masculine isn’t questioned as a stereotype. I know many people will say that getting more women into the military isn’t necessarily a great advancement. But just as a marketing effort aimed at women, this is one of the more interesting ones I’ve seen, since it highlights specific types of equality (pay, etc.) as opposed to some vague idea of “liberation” and challenges the femininity/masculinity binary.
UPDATE: Reader Samantha C. says,
You know, I was all over this until the bit about “as a woman, you’ll totally still be able to go shopping and dress up tee hee”. And calling that life that of a “normal woman”. I just really hate those interests being universally assumed of all women.
I think it’s an excellent point.
Comments 31
Brian — September 18, 2009
If it's "legitimately" masculine, then women might be seen as compromising their femininity by doing it. If it's only "stereotypically" masculine, then it's not legitimately masculine, and is actually compatible with being feminine. That's probably all that's behind saying stereotypically. They want to say "Although it's stereotyped as masculine, it's not really."
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist — September 18, 2009
Brian does have a good point, but the fact of the matter is, many people view the military (or the Navy) as traditionally masculine, which is TRUE, but it shouldn't be.
I like those advertisements, they're very cool and respectful toward women. As a child, I've always so badly wanted to become a Marine or join the U.S military, but Deaf people are not allowed to join.
Cute Bruiser — September 18, 2009
I can't help but notice that the lady to the left in the second photo appears to have an engagement/wedding and of some sort.
AK — September 18, 2009
This is fascinating! To hear an employer of any kind boast "equal pay for equal work" is pretty exciting - since it seems to acknowledge that such equality is not typical. Glad to see that kind of inequality recognized. However, I seem to recall news reports not too long ago about sexual assaults spiking in the US military, particularly among soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I recall some really sickening stories - anyone have the statistics?
We need a word like "greenwashing" to describe misleading people into believing a highly gender stratified institution has a culture of gender equality.
Laurie — September 18, 2009
I do have to note that that's a hell of a whitewashing of the armed forces, too. IIRC, our armed forces are disproportionately minority, in part because of the opportunities that may not be available otherwise.
Rosemary — September 18, 2009
Interesting, though I do wonder a bit about the whitewashing (though a few of those women may be Hispanic). It is encouraging that they are using the idea of equal pay and trying to break the stereotype, though.
Of course all this progress falls under the header of "if you're not gay" DADT notwithstanding (every gay person I know, including myself, considers it to be more or less a ban or at least a large deterrent to joining).
WanderingOak — September 18, 2009
I served with several women when I was in the Navy. For the most part, a majority were professional career women who were very good at their jobs. Of course, there also were a few bad apples who would scream 'sexual harassment' when there wasn't anything of the sort going on. Instead, all they wanted to get out of work. That type of personality usually wound up getting a dishonorable discharge.
Promotions in the Navy were usually gender-neutral when I was in. In fact, being a woman or minority would increase your chances of promotion in certain cases.
Maria — September 18, 2009
i am not in the navy, but i work in a naval history museum. specifically, i work with submarines. the submarine force was one of the last completely gender-segregated branches in any of the armed forces until about six years ago, when the first woman officer was commissioned (it may have been earlier, but that was around when the news was released). it wasn't until this year that more than one female was allowed onboard at a time for training. (Again, at least that's when the info became public.) Not a week has gone by in the twelve years that i have worked there that i have not received a disparaging comment- either intentional or unintentional- about my gender.
even though there are a few little things that could be improved upon, this ad actually brought tears to my eyes (gosh, what a girl thing to do!). it proves what a tremendous stride not only women have made, but men and the entire military culture in general. if this ad were printed even fifteen years ago, it would only have shown them in Dress uniform, which is a skirt. thirty or forty years ago, it would only have shown nurses.
if it is bringing out such strong feelings in a mere civvy like me, i can't even begin to imagine the sense of pride and accomplishment women who have been in the service for twenty or thirty years feel seeing this ad, and the optimism they can teach young women entering the service today.
joe — September 18, 2009
Whatever else you think of the armed forces, there is at least some evidence that they seem to be pretty good at leveling inequality for women and minorities because the rigid hierarchical ranking system makes it more difficult for people to indulge in their personal prejudices.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/141165
From the article:
"Whites are far and away the least satisfied [in the military]," says Jennifer Hickes Lundquist, a sociologist at the University of Massachusetts and the study author. "Black females tend to be the most satisfied. It's a direct opposite and complete reversal of what we know about civilian job satisfaction."
"It's not that the military environment treats white males less fairly; it's simply that, compared to their peers in civilian society, white males lose many of the advantages that they had," Lundquist says. "There's a relative deprivation when you compare to satisfaction of peers outside of the military."
MSC — September 18, 2009
While I agree the ad is a step forward, and has several things I like in it, there is still one major problem in the step towards equality that is very much highlighted here. That is that this still says to be empowered women must be more masculine or take on more masculine roles. It is good that we finally recognize that masculine qualities are not limited to men and that it is acceptable for women to have masculine qualities, but until a feminine woman or man is also able to be seen as empowered there will not be equality. This ad shows just how much more valued the masculine is than the feminine. We must question why masculinity and empowerment seem to go hand-in-hand in our society.
Furthermore, notice the ad still preserves a distinct binary between masculine and feminine because it makes you have to choose when to display each. It says that even in the navy there is time to be feminine, when you are on leave. In other words its okay to be feminine, but not while you are in uniform. Even more disturbing is the idea that to be feminine is to go shopping. Then there is their use of the word, "girly stuff." Do we really want to equate femininity with being a child. If a male is doing something masculine we tend to say it is manly, or man's work. Yet if a woman does something feminine, it is girly. This to is a sign of the undervaluing of the feminine. Though it is good to see women's masculine qualities valued, it would be good if her feminine qualities were equally valued.
Samantha C — September 18, 2009
you know, I was all over this until the bit about "as a woman, you'll totally still be able to go shopping and dress up tee hee". And calling that life that of a "normal woman". I just really hate those interests being universally assumed of all women, and it was really jarring for me to see that paragraph go uncommented on in a post that was otherwise about *bashing* stereotypes. How can the writer be so great about calling out stereotypes in the rest of the advertisement, and then toss something like that in there?
Jenn — September 19, 2009
Sorry. Can't get on board the train. I saw that awkward positioning of that woman in the 2nd picture so you can see her ring. I caught the under current of "but you can still totes be a girl, which includes shopping!"
These ads are selling a very narrow idea of femininity. Sure, it may be wider than the Navy did before, and it's probably wider than the majority of ads in general. But there's still that nasty undercurrent of assumed heterosexuality ("you can be in the Navy, have a vagina, and have a wedding ring because you're totes not a dyke!").
Considering that Don't Ask Don't Tell is still going strong, especially for lesbians (who are more likely to be discharged for assumed homosexuality than men, even though there are less women in the Armed Forces), my views on the military and their thinly veiled attempts to sell empowerment (but not too much) and achievement (but not so much that you're you don't have time for shopping and men) is strongly negative.
That and the whole concept of what exactly the military in America actually does and what the men and women in it are used for (hint: it's not their own gain).
legolandpenguin — September 19, 2009
I don't like the "girly-stuff" part of the ad but I can kind of understand why it was put there. From my experience as a woman who has done some time in the military, being in uniform takes away some of the things that are typically considered feminine - your hair has to be short/always pulled back, very little jewelry, wearing uniforms that feel like starched pajamas and are generally not figure flattering in any way. I don't really like to mess with my hair or makeup or clothes - "getting all dressed up" - but I still found this transition to be kind of difficult, and I felt defeminized in a way going through it (which was an odd contrast to the times when I felt my gender was emphasized for whatever reason). So to me, it really seems the intent of the paragraph was to be reassuring - there are things that you'll have to give up, but not entirely.
Joshu — September 19, 2009
I think it’s fascinating that they refer to feminine and masculine characteristics as stereotypes, rather than simply saying they mix feminine and masculine traits (thus accepting them as meaningful categories).
I use the term, "stereotypically" when referring to gender categories. I do it because I want to acknowledge that, while some traits are associated with a specific gender, in reality, people have a wide variety of traits, and our stereotypes about those traits are often incorrect when applied to a particular individual.
I use the term "stereotypically" because I'm trying to be sensitive to accusations of sexism. I don't want to be seen as suggesting that an individual woman under discussion couldn't have a trait that is stereotypically masculine. I don't want to reinforce the stereotypes about what men and women must be like, so I acknowledge that I'm discussing a stereotype, which may or may not fit the individual in question.
To put it another way, can you list off for me some feminine traits that fit into "meaningful categories", without sounding sexist in the process?
Reanimated Horse — September 19, 2009
OK. I realized what's bugging me about it...
It's not that they are saying "The NAVY understands that women are people." It's instead only saying "The NAVY's definition of women is broader than that of most other advertisers, and isn't that enough?"
It's taking advantage of the fact that it's only got to say something new as an ad. It doesn't have to saying anything new in a practical sense. Women can be active in the military - I think most people realize that. It simply acknowledges an aspect of women that other advertisers are reluctant to address, and relying on our relief that it's being voiced at all. So much so that I forgot to think about the fact that 'gender equality' is being co-opted, emptied of its meaning, and turned into a medium for an advertising message. It's not like the NAVY is specifically outspoken in the interest of women's equality. Yet in the advertising world, it's raising the flag about it. Why is that?
I'm sure that's been said and demonstrated more eloquently on other parts of this blog. I just couldn't think of where.
kate — September 21, 2009
Apparently you will not be a happy woman in the Navy if you're blonde. Where are the blondes?
Elaine — September 28, 2009
Anyone notice how much make-up they are all wearing?
De-gendering Mechanical Work at Sears » Sociological Images — April 23, 2010
[...] to gendered online degree programs, men’s and women’s work shoes, depicting Navy women, gendered milk ad campaign, why do men and women need hotel rooms?, high heels and professionalism, [...]
Osori — April 7, 2011
While it was noticed that the "empowerment" line of feminist thought traverses the trajectory of consumerism, nobody here makes direct reference to the fact that this Naval "empowerment" is entirely dependent on imperialism.
The United States has military outposts in some 100 nations around the globe. It is an imperial hegemon the likes of which the world has never seen. To maintain this empire without a draft, any and all talent is required. As such, this "empowering" of women is but a necessary evil from the standpoint of those running the show.
Luckily for them, there are many who are blind to this misdirection and gladly gobble such messages up. Well, somewhat gobble them up. A few seem to get a bit discomfited by a lack of openly gay people in advertisements, or overly gender normative ad copy. If only they were as disturbed at the actual death, destruction, and lawlessness these women actually contribute to.
And no, these images aren't symbolic of some greater transformation, nor are they even that new. Remember Rosie the Riveter? She was seamlessly replaced with June Cleaver. As soon as WWII was over and Rosie's services were no longer needed - women were shooed of the factory floor and shuffled back into the kitchen.
Imperialist feminism - only in America. Liberals will literally fall for anything.
7Q — December 6, 2011
I think the USN is making genuine efforts at equal opportunity for both sexes. It's advertising those efforts that's difficult. The whole freaking name: women (re)defined is kind of obnoxious to start with because its very nature draws a line. Be a woman! Join the Navy! You can! Honestly, the proper tagline for every armed service is: Serve! Be a soldier! Be a sailor! Be a pilot!
But they're going for multiple things: 1. let american women know that, if they want to serve, the Navy is a place where they can genuinely do so; no special treatment, no unfair treatment, no bullshit; here's hoping it's as good as it's cooked up to be. 2. show America that the armed services aren't sexist... at least the Navy.
They're aiming at a demographic, which really isn't bad. It's just that that really does come with some inevitable implications. I think they could have done better than the whole paragraph about shopping and going out and shit (really? What, is the Navy looking for women or cheerleaders?), but as demographic oriented advertisements go, the Navy doesn't stoop to commercial levels. Which I can only expect and hope to be able to as long as I live.