Looking at G.I. Jane through Lenses of Gender

Sheri Crowley Rooks
@ The University of Southern Mississippi

Abstract

The military is a traditionally male profession in which women participate in various occupational specialities. However, women in the military may encounter two conflicting traditions as they fulfill their duties: female socialization and traditional military culture. This conversation analysis of the feature film G. I. Jane explores the issue of sexism in the United States military. In particular, gender concepts associated with the women-in-combat issue are examined through two lenses of gender: androcentrism and gender polarization (Bem, 1993).

One of the most powerful, reliable weapons of the armed forces is the men and women who serve their country. They are men and women, from all areas of the country and ethnic backgrounds, who swear to defend and protect the Constitution and the citizens of the United States. These soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines sacrifice large salaries, they sacrifice time spent with their families, they sacrifice privileges and rights that average citizens value (Hewes, 1998), and they even sacrifice their lives. Moreover, the service members make these sacrifices willingly. And these sacrifices may go unnoticed by the public. In the 1990s, however, the public's view of the military has not been a positive picture. The public has witnessed sex scandals of Tailhook, Aberdeen, and Lt. Kelly Flynn. They have seen racially motivated crimes at Fort Bragg, and they have heard about deaths during Ranger School and Scuba School. They have also learned about the 'push' for women in combat.

Although women have been serving their country since the First World War, the women-in-combat issue remains a complicated one. The debate surrounding the issue reveals the dialectical tensions among militarism and pacifism, public policy and private choices, and cohesiveness and conflict. Women-in-combat is additionally controversial because it challenges societal perceptions of gender roles, military readiness, military effectiveness, and equal opportunity. In the name of equality between the sexes, gender-norming was introduced to the military in the 1970s (Palmer, 1991). Gender-norming is the process of adjusting (male) standards to accommodate the entry of women in the armed forces. This process has created tension between women and men in the military (Norman, 1997). These tensions, in some cases, have been displayed as sexism and harassment. The purpose of this paper is to examine portrayals of sexism in the United States military through an analysis of the feature film G. I. Jane. More specifically, this analysis will address gender concepts that contribute to sexist attitudes toward women in the military through discussions of: 1) sex-role congruency theory, 2) androcentrism and gender polarization, 3) women in the military, and 4) the attitudes depicted in G. I. Jane.

Review of Literature

Sex Role Congruency Theory

Through the socialization process, males and females learn culturally specific characteristics and behaviors based on their gender (Andrews, 1992). These cultural orientations teach males and females to conform to behaviors consistent with their sex role orientation. Sex roles are attitudes and expectations associated with physiological sex (Pearson, 1985). That is, those who internalize desirable behaviors of men and reject the behaviors of women adhere to a masculine sex role orientation. Contrastingly, those who internalize favorable behaviors of women and reject those of the men follow a feminine sex role orientation. Behaviors are also prescribed according to gender. For example, masculinity and the masculine sex role orientation include behaviors such as assertiveness, dominance, competitiveness, and leadership. Femininity and the feminine sex role orientation consist of behaviors such as sensitivity, compassion, cooperation, and yielding (Bem, 1993; Nadler & Nadler, 1990). Sex role congruency theory contends that people exhibiting traits consistent with their sex role orientation are evaluated more favorably than those exhibiting traits inconsistent with their sex role orientation (Stewart, Stewart, Friedley, & Cooper, 1990). Since leadership is consistent with the masculine sex role orientation, society expects "females to be effective followers and males to perform well as leaders. When individuals do not conform to these roles, they are judged harshly" (Stewart et al., 1990, p. 218). Therefore, males are expected to be masculine and females are expected to be feminine. By aligning behaviors with physiological sex, a polarization of sex role orientation occurs for males and females.

Gender Polarization

Gender polarization is comparable to sex role congruency because it, too, deals with distinctions between male and female. Gender polarization is the process of organizing social life to the extent that people and ways of viewing the world are dichotomized (Bem, 1993). It creates meaning for what it means to be male and female in society. That is, male-female distinctions are relevant to all aspects of life. For example, Bem suggests that a gendered personality and identity reflect different and unequal roles for males and females. Like sex role congruency, masculinity is defined by task-oriented, problem-solving traits and femininity is defined by expressive traits. Males communicate assertively, while females communicate gently. Men construct their identities around dominance and females construct their identities around deference. Those who deviate from the scripts for being male and female are regarded as abnormal (Bem, 1993).

Additionally, Bem asserts that the body is subject to gender polarization. The sex of the body is expected to match the gender of the psyche. Moreover, the sex of an individual should be distinct so that bodies look male and female. For example, to avoid looking like men, women may shave, remove, and bleach their hair. On the other hand, men may build muscles and inject hormones to avoid looking like women (Bem, 1993). Consequently, the gendered body and personality reflect the polarization of males and females in the social structure so that their identities are dichotomous.

Androcentrism

Another lens of gender that shapes how people interpret and communicate their social reality, according to Bem (1993), is androcentrism. Androcentrism refers to male-centeredness whereby the male experience is the norm or standard. That which is not the norm is a deviation. Consequently, females are a deviation. Since the males are the centers of the universe through this lens, everything is defined in terms of similarities and dissimilarities to men, thereby making the male experience the reference point for the culture. As the deviation, or "other," women are defined in terms of their relationships to men. This view suggests that women are different from, and inferior to, men. It also accepts male dominance and assertiveness as the norm (Bem, 1993).

Androcentrism of social practices also exists, according to Bem (1993). Men and women are segregated into occupations with unequal status and power. In the workplace, males are expected to assume high status roles and task orientation while females are expected to assume low status and support roles (Stewart et al., 1990). According to sex role expectations, "women do women's work in organizations" (Buzzanell, 1995, p. 331). As a result, women may remain "other" if they are relegated to positions of limited responsibility (Eisenberg & Goodall, 1997) thereby marginalizing women's occupational status. For example, the workplace has been historically structured around male workers, without consideration of females' pregnancy and childcare needs. Thus, the social world is organized to take care of male needs. Since they are the central characters around which action revolves, male perspectives are privileged (Bem, 1993).

Women in the Military

One organization that privileges the male perspective and experience is the United States military. According to Dunivin (1994), the armed forces are characterized by a combat, masculine-warrior (or CMW) paradigm. With combat as the primary function of the military, all activities and structures are organized around combat activities. According to former Marine Corps Commandant, Robert H. Barrow, combat is the process of capturing, killing, and destroying the enemy (Dunbar, 1992). In addition to combat, a second component of military culture is the masculine-warrior image. This image reflects a view of soldiering as a masculine role in which masculine norms, values, and lifestyles are valued. Dunivin postulates that "combat arms provide men the opportunity to demonstrate their masculinity, and the warrior's role is one way to prove one's manhood" (1994, p. 536). In this masculine, androcentric culture, women are regarded as outsiders. Women are outsiders because they do not measure up to the masculine combatant image. Combatant images are those of competitive and aggressive males; males who are not and should not be afraid (Bethell, 1997; Dunivin, 1994). "The armed forces are exceptionally macho institutions--soldiers are regularly inducted into manly valor by being encouraged to despise effeminacy" (Carter, 1996, p. 332). Therefore, since the military is a male institution, some think its participants should only include masculine males.

Despite the combat, masculine-warrior paradigm (CMW), the military has seen women participate in this country's wars (McDougall, 1997). Although women have worked as nurses and in other supportive roles in wartime, their participation was not officially accepted until World War I (Segal, 1989). In 1973, a declining population, the end of mandatory military service, and decreasing male enlistments motivated the Department of Defense to accept women as members in all military occupations except heavy labor and combat (Herbert, 1994; McDougall, 1997). Since the 1970s, women have increased their numbers from 2 percent of the total force to 13 and 14 percent of the total force in 1997, according to Department of Defense statistics (Congressional Quarterly, 1997). During the Persian Gulf War, more than 35,000 women worked behind the front lines (Carter, 1996; Palmer, 1991).

Despite their integration into the armed forces, women continue to be excluded from ground combat (armor and infantry) and submarine duty (Congressional Quarterly, 1997; Dunbar, 1992). However, women have been included in technical combat positions' such as missile launch officers. Women in the Army serve competently in nontraditional occupations such as aviation, paratroopers, cargo handlers, military intelligence, law enforcement, and equipment maintenance and operation (Beck, 1990; Yarbrough, 1990). Yet, according to Rustad, "female soldiers in formerly all-male jobs are caught in a cultural transition. They are initiated into two conflicting traditions, female socialization and traditional military culture" (1990, p. 123). Two assumptions seem to emerge from this argument. The first assumption is that female socialization follows gender polarization, in which females are expected to be feminine. The second assumption reflects an androcentric belief that suggests the traditional military culture is a masculine vocation. Since all women should be feminine, femininity should not flourish in a masculine world. Therefore, traditional gender roles are preferred in the male-dominated military (Segal, 1989). Moreover, this traditional view does not acknowledge women as warriors (Congressional Quarterly, 1997). Women may support military men by "cheering their warriors, offering sympathy and companionship, and nursing the wounded" (Carter, 1996, p. 331) rather than supporting men in a military capacity.

Proponents of expanding women's roles in the military are concerned with increasing women's access to power. However, to attain power, one must achieve promotion. Unfortunately, these positions are typically reserved for combat officers and the combat exclusion policy precludes women from achieving such positions (Congressional Quarterly, 1997). Moreover, advocates for women in combat argue that women deserve an opportunity to be promoted and to hold complex jobs. In Canada, Norway, and Great Britain, women have been successfully integrated into combat roles (Dunbar, 1992). Since the U.S. military is a large institution, expanded opportunities for women will permit them to "serve in proportions equal to their numbers" (Herbert, 1994, p. 26). As such, expanded opportunities and representation may increase women's autonomy and legitimate power within the organization.

Opponents of women in combat assert that military effectiveness and readiness will be compromised by the inclusion of women in combat. According to Bethell (1997), by including many women, combat will be transformed into something different. This difference, if perceived by recruits as a weakening of the masculine warrior image, could negatively affect enlistments (Congressional Quarterly, 1997). As a result, two of the more common arguments against women in combat have centered on the physical characteristics and presence of women.

First, physical characteristics of women are expected to affect military readiness. Women are regarded as physically weaker than men (Barry & Thomas, 1997; Buckley, 1993). For example, the typical woman is shorter than the average man, possesses half the upper body strength and lower aerobic capacity, and more than a third less muscle mass than a man. Her physical incapabilities are further illustrated by the fact that only 10 percent of women are able to meet the physical requirements for 75% of the military jobs (Owens, 1997). Because of these physical 'deficiencies,' women may have less strength and endurance than men in combat. Additionally, women's ability to give birth makes women less deployable than men (Luddy, 1994). This issue is further compounded by some service women's use of pregnancy to avoid hazardous duty (McDougall, 1997). Opponents of women in combat contend that, by virtue of women's physical characteristics, leaders will be required to focus on women's health issues rather than combat itself (Owens, 1997). Because of women's reduced physical capabilities, readiness standards are called into question because standards have been lowered to accommodate women and equalize opportunity (Norman, 1997). These different standards, known as gender-norming, have created resentment among service members (McDougall, 1997). Second, women in combat are presumed to be detrimental to unit cohesiveness. Their presence may inhibit unit cohesiveness due to potentially distracting conjugal relationships. According to Mitchell (1991), when women and men work under stressful conditions in close quarters, sexual liaisons may become likely. These liaisons may threaten the stability of military families, disrupt discipline, and distract personnel from the mission. Mitchell also claims that women are less aggressive and daring than men are, and a battlefield is not conducive to this behavior. Moreover, women's maternal instincts are said to make them more peaceful than men, thereby minimizing the camaraderie among men (Carter, 1996; Herbert, 1994). Male bonding allows men to reduce stress under the challenging conditions of war, while women's presence inhibits this bonding. A decreased bond among the troops negatively affects unit cohesiveness and military readiness (Clinton, 1997).

G. I. Jane

G. I. Jane is a feature film that addresses the controversies surrounding the women in combat issue (Scott, 1997). It is a film about a Navy military intelligence officer selected as the first woman to participate in the Navy SEAL training program because of an U. S. Senator's (Anne Bancroft) political agenda. The training program, touted as the most rigorous in the world, incorporates brutal and humiliating practices. As she progresses through the training, Lt. O'Neil (portrayed by Demi Moore) rejects the double standard and demands to be treated as all other trainees. After gaining the respect of her classmates, O'Neil is charged with "conduct unbecoming" a female officer and is removed from the training. O'Neil realizes that the senator has orchestrated the charges as part of a political compromise. O'Neil confronts the senator and threatens to inform the press about the compromise. Fearing exposure, the senator agrees to reinstate O'Neil for the final phase of the SEAL training. During the final phase of training, the troops are called to active duty. While in combat, the unit's Master Chief (Viggo Mortensen) is separated from the group and Lt. O'Neil assumes command during the desert rescue operation. Not only does O'Neil successfully extract the troops from the situation, but she is instrumental in reuniting Master Chief Urgayle with the unit (Movie Database, 1998).

Conversation Analysis

The following analysis is drawn from the training events in the film G. I. Jane (Scott, 1997). Having completed rigorous physical training, sleep deprivation, and a writing exercise, the weary trainees are called into the rain to begin a live-fire, obstacle course. The event occurs in darkness and pouring rain. A training instructor calls the soldiers into formation and announces the teams:

Instructor: "Evening cupcakes. Twelve minutes or less gentlemen. That's all you need to know about this course. Group One. Newberry, Hampton, McCool, Wickwire, Slovnik, and England. Group Two. Miller, Flee, Powell, Ayers, Cortez, and O'Neil. You will find a white step that is mandated female aid, O'Neil. You will find and use them on every barrier obstacle."

O'Neil: "Sgt. Pyro, I don't want to use any step."

Instructor: "Keep your mouth shut."

O'Neil: "I want to go through like the rest of the guys."

---

The soldiers go through the live-fire course and must scale a wall in order to complete the exercise. Approaching the wall, O'Neil sees the white step and moves it away from the wall. She tells the men to go over the wall by stepping on her back. The final man to scale the wall, Cortez, remains at the top and extends his hand to O'Neil in order to pull her up. He loosens his grip and drops her. With no other way over the wall, O'Neil replaces the step and climbs over successfully. However, she is the last to complete the obstacle course. After the completion times are announced and the formation is released, O'Neil goes to the Master Chief's cabin and an instructor opens the door. O'Neil requests to speak with the Master Chief.

Instructor: "He's not home."

(O'Neil sighs and turns to walk away. As the door begins to close, she returns and shouts):

"Excuse me Master Chief, Cortez finished ahead of me in group two but he failed and I didn't. Why?"

Master Chief: "Instructor Pyro, educate the lieutenant."

Pyro: (shouting from behind the door) "You received an automatic 30-second deduction which puts you under the wire. It's called gender-norming, O'Neil. Standard procedure for all females in physical training."

O'Neil: "What all females, if I'm the only one? I think I should have the choice."

Master Chief: (comes to the door) "Stand at attention. Lt. O'Neil, when I want your opinion I'll give it to you." (Closes the door in her face).

---

This dialogue reflects two arguments in the debate pertaining to women in combat. One issue depicted in the dialogue is the different training standards for men and women. These standards illustrate an androcentric position toward training as the male standard is the established norm and the female standard is adjusted down. This procedure reflects the perspective of women as a deviation from the norm. Women are not held to the same standards because they are not physically equal to males: an argument used by opponents of women in combat (Barry & Thomas, 1997; Buckley, 1993). Additionally, women's inferiority places women as other. In G. I. Jane, Lt. O'Neil directly confronts the issue while questioning the Master Chief about completion times on the obstacle course. O'Neil is "other" than an elite, physically trained soldier due to the reduced standard (subtracting 30 seconds from the men's obstacle course times).

A second issue related to physical strength is also depicted in the dialogue. This issue is gender-norming. Gender-norming is the process of scoring women's tests differently than men's or providing equivalent training (Donnelly, 1991). Resentment toward such a practice is illustrated by the behavior of O'Neil's teammate, Cortez. By dropping O'Neil, viewers observe Cortez's resentment toward helping "the physically inferior woman" over the scaling wall. Despite O'Neil's initial refusal to use the "mandated female aid," she eventually uses the step because her teammates have not helped her over the wall. Her need for assistance, from a teammate or an object, confirms the stereotypical image of a weak woman who needs to be rescued. Although she is not rescued by a teammate, she is saved by the "female aid." Symbolically, O'Neil's use of the white step may be viewed as an acceptance of "other" status. That is, it may be an admission that she is not as physically capable as her male counterparts. This, too, reflects an androcentric perspective.

Following her conversation about gender-norming with the Master Chief, a dissatisfied O'Neil visits the base commander to inform him of perceived mistreatment. She informs him that he, the base commander, has mistreated her since day one.

O'Neil: "It's the double standard, the separate quarters, the deferential treatment. It's the way you practically pulled my chair out for me when we first met."

General: "Because I was civil? Now you're complaining?"

O'Neil: "I can't afford civility, sir. How am I supposed to fit in with these guys when you've got me set up as an outsider? You've given me a different set of rules. The answer is, I can't. I mean really, why don't you issue me a pink petticoat to wear around the base?"

(Discussion continues briefly and O'Neil charges the general with resentment).

General: What I resent is some politician using my base as a test tube for her grand social experiment. What I resent is the sensitivity training that is now mandatory for my men, the OB/GYN I have to keep on my staff just so someone can keep track of your personal Pap smears. But most of all, what I resent is your perfume, however subtle it may be, impeding the aroma of my fine $3.59 cigar, which I will put out this instant if the phallic nature of it happens to offend your g..d... fragile sensibilities. Does it?

The problematic component of this exchange with the general is her desire to "fit in with these guys." To fit in, O'Neil is willing to sacrifice the double standards and the different rules. She does not want to be viewed through gendered lenses. For example, she acknowledges gender polarization through her "pink petticoat" comment. According to gender polarization, women are expected to act and look feminine (Bem, 1993). The pink petticoat is a metaphor for femininity because pink is a color associated with females. From birth, girls are dressed in pink clothing so their sex may be determined without requiring further inspection. Additionally, a petticoat is a traditionally feminine garment worn by women. Although she does not wish to be characterized as a traditional woman, O'Neil's interaction with the general is problematic. In order to fit in, she later requests to be treated the same as men. The reality is that she is not the same. She is not a man. By denying her uniqueness as a female, O'Neil devalues her own gender.

Additional women-in-combat issues emerge from the exchange between the lieutenant and general: women's politics and women's medical needs. First, proponents of the women in combat issue have been accused of politicizing the military to advance feminist ideology (Bethell, 1997). In the early 1990s, feminist groups advocated expanded roles for women in combat (Norman, 1996), however the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces recommended against such an expansion. Nonetheless, some feminists believe that the military should reflect society at large. However, opponents suggest that "the purpose of the military is not to provide jobs, promotions, and a laboratory for social experimentation; it is to deter aggression or win a war with as few casualties as possible" (Donnelly, 1991, p. 44). Moreover, the military is not the same as civilian employment, nor is it an equal opportunity employer (Hewes, 1998). They suggest that the military has to be different from the society it protects (Owen, 1997). These views are supported in the film as the general expresses his disdain for the senator's "social experiment." Second, women's medical needs are repeatedly introduced by opponents of women in combat. Opponents suggest that military women are more likely to become ill or injured than men and up to 17 percent of women become pregnant (Barry & Thomas, 1997; Owen, 1997). As a result, medical needs may become a focal point rather than the combat mission. In one scene, the general articulated this argument in his discussion with Lt. O'Neil by suggesting that her presence required additional medical care. This argument also illustrates a view of a weak woman in which he emphasizes her "fragile sensibilities." This comment implies a lack of physical and emotional strength among women. It also reflects sex role congruency, whereby women are expected to be sensitive, accommodating, and yielding. Through this interaction, O'Neil repeatedly denies her own sex role congruency. She claims that she does not possess characteristics that would limit her readiness for any mission. She attempts to violate the general's sex role expectations by denying any sensitivity, femininity, or special needs. This violation would be a positive violation in the general's eyes, since he would not expect her to possess masculine characteristics. To further illustrate her desire for inclusion in the traditionally masculine world, O'Neil leaves the general's office and goes to the barber shop. At the barbershop, she shaves off her long hair, the final defining characteristic of her femininity. This action by O'Neil is her rejection of gender polarization and sex role congruency.

After gaining the acceptance of her peers by acting like a man in a man's world, O'Neil is accused of conduct unbecoming an officer. She is accused of an inappropriate relationship with a female officer. Learning that the charges have been orchestrated by Senator DeHaven, O'Neil goes to the Capitol to confront the senator.

O'Neil: "Tell me you didn't sell me out. Tell me you didn't sink my whole career to make you look good."

Senator: "Those charges will be dismissed. Your career will go forward, albeit back here in Washington. Oh don't tell me you wanted that kind of life, squat pissing in some third world jungle with some guys looking up your behind."

O'Neil: "I wanted the choice. That's how it's supposed to be."

Senator: "Truth is, the choice isn't yours and it isn't mine. American families are just not prepared to have their daughters and young mothers in harms way."

O'Neil: "You don't know that."

Senator: "Yes I do. Roper, Harris, Gallup. All the polls, they all come back the same way."

O'Neil: "What are you saying? That a woman's life is more valuable than a man's? That a woman's death is more hurtful than a man's?"

Senator: "No politician can afford to let women come home in bodybags, especially me. It was never going to happen anyway."

O'Neil: "Then why the f... did you start me on all of this in the first place?"

Senator: "Truthfully, I never expected you to do so damn well. I thought you'd ring out in two weeks. Bing, bang, it's over and we're popular."

---

This interaction illustrates O'Neil's frustration with traditional roles for women as she argues for the right to choose her career path. The opportunity to participate in combat is a frequent argument posited by proponents of the issue. Without an opportunity to serve in combat, women may be denied the respect they deserve (Owens, 1997). The proponents contend that women should not be relegated to support roles or subjected to a glass ceiling in the military (Herbert, 1994). While combat is consistent with the masculine sex role, combat service support roles, such as clerical, supply, and medical occupations, are consistent with the feminine sex role. By challenging these occupational limitations for women in the military, the social practices of androcentrism are challenged. Moreover, hierarchy, the masculine warrior image of the military, and sex role expectations are also challenged. Until the military culture evolves or changes, women in the military may be devalued.

The Senator's suggestion that families are not prepared for the consequences of women in combat supports the military's masculine warrior paradigm (Dunivin, 1991). The implied message is that women should be the protected rather than the protectors (Buckley, 1993) and research supports this traditional view of women. American soldiers and the American public are uneasy about placing women in combat situations. A 1992 survey of Army women revealed that, despite favoring a right to choose combat, they would not volunteer for combat. Only 14 percent of female officers and 12 percent of enlisted women said they would volunteer (Luddy, 1994). Similarly in the film, the female candidate for the Navy SEALS training was not a volunteer. She was asked to participate by the Senator. However, the Senator did not expect Lt. O'Neil to succeed. A training failure was not perceived as a negative outcome since women were not expected to succeed in this demanding, physical task reserved for men. O'Neil's failure would be consistent with sex role congruency theory. In other words, because she is a woman, she is expected to fail. O'Neil's success in the training not only violated expectations, it refuted the argument that combat should be a masculine vocation.

Finally, the discussion between the Senator and Lt. O'Neil illustrates the political implications of the controversy surrounding women in combat. The Senator is acutely aware of the political ramifications of sending women to war: "the American people are not prepared," "the polls come back the same way," "no politician can afford" to watch women die for their country. She is articulating a view that opponents claim feminists are ignoring. Opponents claim that the feminists' political agenda on this issue conflicts with three other groups of women: 1) the majority of military women who do not want to serve in combat, 2) the military wives who worry about the safety and stability of their husbands serving in combat, and 3) the mothers who will lose sons and daughters if women serve in combat (Owens, 1997). However, O'Neil openly questions this argument by asking whether one life is more valuable or one loss is less tragic than another. To illustrate the stereotypical coldness of politics, the Senator replies with concern for her own popularity rather than concern for the lives at risk in combat situations.

Eventually, Lt. O'Neil is reinstated by the Senator and resumes the training. Her unit is called to active-duty: a "real world operation" in which mistakes can be deadly. The team leader of the unit successfully leads the soldiers. In combat, the leader is competent, intelligent, composed, and respected. The leader safely and effectively executes the mission. The leader is strong and brave. And the leader is a hero. In the film, that leader is a woman. Disproving the "woman as the weaker sex" stereotype, Lt. O'Neil runs through the battlefield to rescue the Master Chief of the SEALS training program. She carries him to safety and redeploys her unit out of harms way. These characteristics and actions exhibited by Lt. O'Neil are typically reserved for and associated with masculinity. Yet, the characteristics are possessed by a woman. Her example in combat illustrates the blurring of sex role expectations and gender polarization. It reassures critics that effective training, regardless of gender, will prevail. However, a criticism of this film is that in order to succeed in a man's world, the female had to act and look like a man in order to be respected. Perhaps this film's portrayal of women in combat reflects a change in some sexist attitudes toward women while simultaneously perpetuating others.

Conclusion

This conversation analysis of the 1997 film, G. I. Jane, has examined four gender concepts that affect perceptions of sexism in the United States military. The issues of this study included sex role congruency theory (Stewart et al., 1990), gender polarization and androcentrism (Bem, 1993), women in the military (Carter, 1996; Dunivin, 1994; Herbert, 1994; Luddy, 1994; Norman, 1997), and sexist attitudes depicted in the film G. I. Jane. Although this analysis did not make a recommendation pertaining to women's roles in combat, it explored the numerous issues associated with the combat controversy and gender-norming. So the next time we see the Army's recruiting commercial that exclaims, "Be All You Can Be" how will it be interpreted? Will it mean "be all you can be, in certain roles" or will it mean "be all you can be, regardless of your gender?" Combat is the business of fighting and killing. Is it a business for all? Should one of the primary qualifications for this business be gender? Only further discussion and legislation will reveal those answers. Fortunately, while the dialogue is on going, dedicated women and men will work together to defend and protect the interests of the United States. Hooah!

REFERENCES

Andrews, P. H. (1992). Sex and gender differences in group communication: Impact on the facilitation process. Small Group Research, 23(1), 74-94.

Barry, J., & Thomas, E. (1997, May 12). At war over women. Newsweek, 129(19), 48-49.

Beck, M. (1991). Women and combat: An overview. In C. Wekesser & M. Polesetsky, (Eds.), Women in the military: Current Controversies (pp. 54-57). San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc.

Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Bethell, R. (1997, July). Our meter maid military: Congressional porkers are no match for the feminists. The American Spectator, 30(7), 20-22.

Buckley, W. F. (1993, April 26). Fighting fire with fire. National Review, 45(8), 62-63.

Buzzanell, P. M. (1995). Reframing the glass ceiling as a socially constructed process: Implications for understanding change. Communication Monographs, 62(4), 327-354.

Carter, A. (1996, September). Should women be soldiers or pacifists? Peace Review, 8(3), 331-335.

Clinton, K. (1997, June). Fort Brag. The Progressive, 61(1), 38.

Donnelly, E. (1991, November 18). What did you do in the Gulf, mommy? National Review, 43(21), 41-44.

Dunbar, C. (1992, Fall). Toward a gender-blind military: A comparative look at women in combat. Harvard International Review, 15(1), 52-54.

Dunivin, K. O. (1994). Military culture: Change and continuity. Armed Forces & Society, 20(4), 531-547.

Eisenberg, E. M. & Goodall, H. L. (1997). Organizational communication: Balancing creativity and constraint (2nd ed.). New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.

Herbert, M. S. (1994, Fall). Feminism, militarism, and attitudes toward the role of women in the military. Feminist Issues, 14(2), 25-48.

Hewes, T. (1998). The feminine mythtique: The fallacy of women in combat. Available: http://joepierre.com/feminine.htm

Luddy, J. (1994, December 16). Why the women-in-combat campaign must be resisted. Human Events, 50(48), 16-17.

McDougall, W. A. (1997, September). Sex, lies, and infantry. New York, 104(3), 43-47.

Mitchell, B. (1991). Women make poor soldiers. In C. Wekesser & M. Polesetsky, (Eds.), Women in the military: Current Controversies (pp. 29-38). San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc.

Movie database. (1998). G.I. Jane movie guide [On-line]. Available: http://www.tvgen.com/movies/mopic/pictures/38/38949.htm

Nadler, L. B., & Nadler, M. K. (1990). Perceptions of sex differences in classroom communication. Women’s Studies in Communication, 13, 46-65.

Norman, G. (1996, June). Babes in arms. Men's Health, 11(5), 56-57.

Owens, M. T. (1997, Spring). Mothers in combat boots. Human Life Review, 23(1), 35-45.

Palmer, E. A. (1991, June 22). Senate debates rights, role of women warriors. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 49(25), 1687.

Pearson, J. C. (1985). Gender and communication. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.

Report to the President. (1992, November 15). Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Roush, P. E. (1991). Women serving in combat would strengthen America's defense. In C. Wekesser & M. Polesetsky, (Eds.), Women in the military: Current Controversies (pp. 54-57). San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc.

Rustad, M. (1991). Discrimination makes women soldiers ineffective. In C. Wekesser & M. Polesetsky, (Eds.), Women in the military: Current Controversies (pp. 123-127). San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc.

Scott, R. (Director). (1997). G.I. Jane [Film]. (Hollywood Pictures, Buena Vista).

Segal, M. W. (1989). The nature of work and family linkages: A theoretical perspective.

In G. L. Bowen & D. K. Orthner (Eds.), The organization family: Work and family linkages in the U. S. military (pp. 3-36). New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.

Stewart, L. P., Stewart, A. D., Friedley, S. A., & Cooper, P. J. (1990). Communication between the sexes: Sex differences and sex-role stereotypes (2^nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick, Publishers.

Women in the military: Mission in Progress. (1997, August 16). Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 55(33), 1962-1966.

Yarbrough, J. (1991). Women in the military harm America's defense. In C. Wekesser & M. Polesetsky, (Eds.), Women in the military: Current Controversies (pp. 39-46). San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc.