'Good Soldiers', 'Bad Apples' and the 'Boys' Club'

569 Pages·2015·2.8 MB·English

by  Joan Bickerton

‘Good Soldiers’, ‘Bad Apples’ and the ‘Boys’ Club’: Media Representations of Military
Sex Scandals and Militarized Masculinities

Ashley Jennifer Bickerton

Thesis submitted to the
Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for a doctoral degree in Women’s Studies

Institute of Feminist and Gender Studies
Faculty of Social Sciences
University of Ottawa

© Ashley Jennifer Bickerton, Ottawa, Canada, 2015
Abstract

This thesis examines news representations of Canadian, American and Australian military
personnel involved in military 'sex scandals'. I explore what the representations of military
personnel involved in well-publicized sex scandals reveal about scripts of soldiering and
militarized masculinities. Despite a history of systemic violence in the military, I ask how and
why the systemic nature of militarized masculinities are able to remain invisible, driving
representations to focus on the ‘bad’ behaviour of individuals? By engaging with feminist
scholarship in International Relations, I present the longstanding culture of misogyny, racism,
homophobia and ableism in the Canadian, American and Australian militaries, focusing on the
ways in which militarized masculinities are guided by these violent structures, and fundamental
to the military's creation of soldiers. My dissertation uses the tools of critical discourse analysis
to unpack the ways blame is individualised in cases of sexual and racist violence involving
military personnel, while the military’s ableism, rape culture and imperial militarized
masculinities are commonly naturalized or celebrated without regard for how they are
fundamentally violent. My thesis presents an intersectional feminist project that intervenes in
emerging questions in the field of transnational disability studies, tracing how militarism,
hegemonic militarized masculinities and imperial soldiering (re)produce categories of ability and
disability.

ii
Acknowledgements

I would like to give a heartfelt thank you to my advisor Dr. Claire Turenne Sjolander who has
been my central point of contact throughout this project. Her time, direction, experience and
brilliance have had a fundamental role in how this project has taken shape. It has been a long
journey, but I think we made quite the team. Despite the serious tone of this thesis, Claire made
the research and writing process fun, positive and lighthearted. I don’t think we ever had a
meeting without laughter and smiles all around. I always had faith that Claire would guide me in
the right direction, which gave numerous sets of revisions a sense a purpose. Claire, I am forever
grateful to have you as a mentor and friend. While this chapter in our lives is closing, may our
friendship grow and lunches in the By-ward Market continue.

I owe a special thank you to Dr. Shoshana Magnet for being an important source of support, a
terrific teacher and friend. Shoshana’s teaching of critical disability studies has redefined my
experience living with chronic illness and has helped me come to a revolutionary place of active
self-love. Her graduate course on Gender, Power and Representation played a pivotal role in
shaping my intersectional feminist lens that helped make this project possible. I also owe a big
thank you to Dr. Kathryn Trevenen for her time, contributions and belief in this project. Between
Claire, Shoshana and Kathryn I had such a positive circle of feminist scholars and role-models
around me who all had something positive to add to this project and my life as a whole.

I would also like to acknowledge my aunt Jane Stinson who volunteered to proofread my thesis
prior to my submission. Drinks will most definitely be on me for the next long while, as I am
forever grateful for your time, comments and suggestions. In addition, thank you to Andrea
Prajerova who offered invaluable insight during the home stretch of this thesis. To my girlfriend
Jody, your actions of love helped create a special space for me to complete this project. Thank
you for making this journey so much more enjoyable. Finally, this project may never have been
completed if it wasn’t for my mom, to whom I could always turn in a time of need. Thank you
for being my rock with all of your time, love and support.

I would also like to thank my external evaluator Dr. Jane Parpart and my internal/external
evaluator Dr. Rebecca Thiessen for their feedback that helped push the positioning of this project
more firmly within emerging scholarship on militarized masculinities. Within a few days of
defending this thesis an external report related to sexual violence in the Canadian Armed Forces
was released to the public. This report found that Canada’s military culture is hostile towards
women and the LGBTQ community. The investigation, led by former Supreme Court Justice
Marie Deschamps, discovered a “sexualized” culture and a culture of silence in the Armed
Forces where sexual harassment and violence is tolerated or condoned up the chain of command.
Like inquiries from the nineteen nineties, the report found that misconduct was not the product of
a few bad apples, but rather caused by serious systemic problems precipitated by its culture.
Much like the inquiries discussed at the forefront of this project, Deschamps’ report is
completely consistent with a theoretically informed analysis that would position its findings as
related to militarism, rape culture, and militarized masculinities. My project develops and
provides some of the theoretical tools and concepts needed to get at the root causes of the
systemic cultural problems in militaries and our militarized society at large.
Ashley Bickerton
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iii
Table of Contents iv
Introduction: Military Scandals, Militarized Masculinities and Systemic Responsibility 1
The 1991 “Tailhook Affair” 1
The 1992 HMAS Swan Scandal 5
The 1993 Somalia Affair 10
Representations and Militarized Masculinities 19
Sexual Violence 21
Trophies 23
Racist Imperial Violence 24
Monstrosity and Ableism 25
Axes of Militarized Masculinities 27
Chapter 1: Men, Hegemonic Masculinities and Militarized Masculinities 29
Militarization and Militarism 40
Militarization, Gender and Masculinities 46
The Construction of Militarized Masculinities 50
Strength and Economic Independence 52
Excessive Violence, Aggression and Sexual Violence 68
Practices of Imperial Violence and Racialized Constructions of Enemies and Soldiers 78
Intersectionality, Hegemony and Militarized Masculinities without Men 87
Representations of Masculinities, Madness and Violence in the News 91
Violent Masculinities as a Silent Norm 92
The Denial or Acceptance of Gender Violence and Racism 98
Blame, Madness and Criminality in Sexual Violence 102
Deconstructing the Intersections of Militarization and Militarized Masculinities 106
Chapter 2: News Representations, Silences, Case Studies and a Thematic Critical Discourse
Analysis 108
The Media and Discourse 111
The Media, Discourse and Gender Constructions 115
Case Studies 116
Data Collection and Media as Discursive Text 117
Masculinities, Race, and Madness in Sexual Violence News Media 122
Thematic Critical Discourse Analysis: Reading for Ideologies, Assumptions and Silences 124
iv
Close Reading and Identification of Themes 129
Reading the Silent Discourses of Militarized Masculinities in the News 137
Chapter 3: Sexual Violence, Militarized Masculinities and the ‘Boys’ Club’ 139
The Material Realities of Sexual Violence in Militaries 140
Militarized Masculinities, Sexual Violence and the Protection of Perpetrators 150
Gender, Sexuality and Difference 151
Bonding and Loyalty 175
Chapter 4: Militarized Masculinities, Trophies and Competitions for the Cup 187
Misogyny, Sexualized Aggression and Able-bodied Superiority 190
Dehumanizing Militarized Trophies of Violence, Racial Superiority, Whiteness and
Masculinities 211
Trophies of Militarized Masculinities 224
Chapter 5: Racist Imperial Violence, Militarized Discourses and Militarized Masculinities 226
Exception and Exceptionalism 229
Militarized Dehumanization and Difference 244
Militarized Masculinities and Racist Imperial Violence 250
Chapter 6: Monstrosity, Ableism and Militarized Masculinities 252
The ‘Normal’ White Body 256
Gender, Sexuality and Class 278
Conclusion: Root Causes of Military “Sex Scandals”: Militarized Masculinities 291
Bibliography 304

v
Introduction: Military Scandals, Militarized Masculinities and Systemic Responsibility

Reports of violence, aggression and abuse committed by Western military personnel were
among the biggest news stories of the 1990s. The United States, Australia and Canada faced a
number of military scandals, the most notorious being the Tailhook Affair of 1991, the HMAS
Swan scandal of 1992, and the Somalia Affair of 1993. Whistleblower stories of military cover-
ups generated public concern in each country, prompting costly national inquiries to identify the
scope of misconduct and the root causes of the violence1. Overall, these inquiries discovered a
variety of systemic problems in the military that went far beyond blaming individuals. National
inquiries made clear that sexist violence, racist violence, aggressive competitions and widespread
cover-ups were not anomalies. They made clear that sexist and racist violence could not be
resolved by culling out a few rogue soldiers, as this type of misconduct was part of longstanding
systemic traditions, attitudes and problems in these three national militaries. As we will see,
despite these scandals and the national inquiries called to respond to them, military personnel in
these three militaries continued to commit violent, aggressive and abusive acts. This dissertation
will begin to unpack why this violence persists, and will find its answer in the construction and
performance of militarized masculinities.
The 1991 “Tailhook Affair”

What has come to be known as the “Tailhook Affair” was the result of sexual violence at
the 35th Annual Tailhook Symposium, an annual convention for American naval aviators.
Despite its official purpose to discuss historical and current events related to naval aviation,

1 The United States published two inquiry reports in 1992 and 1993, Australia published five reports between 1993
and 1998, and Canada published a five volume report in 1997.
1
nearly one hundred sexual assaults were reported. As a result of three inquiries, one hundred and
forty navy personnel were referred for court-martial or disciplinary actions. Several high ranking
officials were also demoted, transferred or resigned because they participated in, condoned
and/or tried to protect the violent perpetrators via cover-ups and other violations of law and
regulation. The reports found they demonstrated failures in leadership (Department of Defense,
1993). Lieutenant Paula Coughlin was sexually assaulted at the Symposium and decided to
report the incident to Rear Admiral John Snyder (former Tailhook president) (Department of
Defense, 1992). Dismayed by weeks of inaction from Rear Adm. Snyder, she wrote Vice
Admiral Richard Dunleavy and an investigation related to ‘indecent assaults’ at Tailhook was
initiated, through the Commander of the Naval Investigative Service (NIS) Rear Admiral Duvall
Williams (Department of Defense, 1992).
The number of reported sexual assaults grew as the NIS investigation unfolded. But only
two low ranking officers were named as possible suspects. The Navy’s Assistant Secretary
Barbara Pope (who sat on the committee overseeing the investigation) grew suspicious of the
investigation. She soon discovered that the Commander of the NIS was reluctant in interviewing
senior officials, held sexist attitudes and repeatedly expressed his desire to terminate the
investigation. In light of these discoveries Pope believed there were clear deficiencies in the
investigation and that the NIS was attempting to limit criticism on the Navy and senior officials
(Bond, 1993, 16 May; Department of Defense, 1992). Bothered by her findings, the Assistant
Secretary refused to support the investigation and offered her resignation to the Navy Secretary if
her concerns were not addressed (Bond, 1993, 16 May). With this pressure from Pope and rising
reports of sexual violence, Navy Secretary Henry L. Garrett III called for two reviews through
the Inspector General’s Office. One review looked into the NIS investigation and the other
2
reviewed events at the Tailhook Symposium. Unlike the initial NIS investigation, Navy
Secretary Garett decided to extend the terms of reference into Tailhook to include all other
violations of law and regulations. The scope of the Inspector General’s investigation into
Tailhook encompassed five specific areas; “1) Indecent assault 2) Indecent exposure 3) Conduct
unbecoming an officer 4) Dereliction of duty, as well as failure to act in a proper leadership
capacity, and 5) False statements and false swearing during the course of our investigation”
(Department of Defense, 1993, p. 5). Unlike the NIS’s investigation, the Inspector General’s
team interviewed a wide range of people at the conference including senior officials that
confirmed Ms. Pope’s initial concern of systemic sexual harassment, cover-ups and deficiencies
in the NIS investigation (Department of Defense, 1992)2.
The Inspector General’s review concluded that the number of officers involved or
complicit in the sexual violence was far more “widespread” than official statistics suggested.
The investigation discovered that the Tailhook Symposium was an event where hundreds of
military men worked together to trap women and collectively assault them, in what came to be
known as the hallway “gauntlet” of horror. In addition, it found that military men participated in
wild “cruise parties” (Department of Defense, 1993, p. 33) in hotel suites that facilitated a
glorified “gang mentality”, where public sex, televised pornography, “strippers”, “escorts”, and
sexual assaults were common place (1993, p.2)3. The review found that several hundred officers

2 Part one of the Tailhook review looked into the initial NIS investigation and discovered that Rear Adm. Williams
held attitudes that should have raised questions about his suitability in commanding the NIS investigation. For
instance, while investigating a report of sexual assault where a survivor claimed, “I was practically gang banged by
a group of fucking F-18 pilots”, Williams inappropriately interjected by saying “any woman that would use the F
word on a regular basis would welcome this type of activity”. Rear Adm. Williams’ interjection indicates an attitude
of blaming sexual violence on the victim (who was asking for it), underscoring not only his lack of suitability to lead
the investigation but also his complicity in rape culture and the actions at Tailhook 1991.
3 The report found that hotel security at the symposium interrupted and tamed the extent of sexual violence,
however, many witnesses confirmed to the Inspector General’s office that many security guards participated in
watching and laughing alongside the events that took place in the suites and hallway gauntlet. Further, the Report
3
were “aware” of the misconduct and chose to “ignore it” (1993, p.2). The investigation also
found that at least fifty false statements were made to the Inspector General to protect colleagues
from persecution (1993, p. 2)4. The report discovered that this “gauntlet” and “gang mentality”
did not exist in a historical vacuum; rather sexist violence was a known and accepted tradition of
the annual Symposium, supported and covered-up through the chain of command for years. This
tradition of accepted sexual violence and debauchery created an atmosphere where officers felt
safe to act inappropriately and assumed the Symposium to be a “free fire zone” where sexual
assaults and drunkenness did not need to be censored but could be performed publically and
indiscriminately without fear of retribution (1993, pp. 1-2).
At the Tailhook Symposium objectifying, harassing and assaulting women resembled a
sporting event where men competed to out-perform one another via aggressive and sexually
charged acts almost exclusively against women. The competitions included; butt-biting
(“sharking”) women, walking around fully exposed (“ball walking”), groping, fondling, exposing
and sexually assaulting women in the “gauntlet”, slapping squadron logo stickers on female body
parts (“zapping”), chicken fights in the pool, heavy drinking, and other sexualized activities
(Department of Defense, 1993). The hallway “gauntlet” was one of the most notorious
competitions where officers and squadrons made their mark by “zapping”, “sharking” and
sexually assaulting women in an effort to show which squadrons and officers were the strongest,
bravest and most ruthless. Photos memorialized many of these competitions and celebratory
activities from excessive drinking to sexual assault.

found that young women recruited from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), female hotel workers,
female military personnel, military wives and sex workers were all vulnerable to sexual assault at the Hilton.
4 The Inspector General’ investigation team heard over fifty false statements during the investigation alone. They
found many Navy officers could not identify colleagues in grainy photographs, yet had little problem identifying
Marines (and vice versa with Marines naming Navy officers but not Marines). This suggested that colleagues were
protecting perpetrators with whom they worked.
4
According to the Inspector General’s review into the events at Tailhook, the sexual
harassment and assaults at the Symposium were not unforeseeable anomalies. The review
discovered several officers wore personalized T-shirts or pins saying, “Women are Property” or
“Not in My Squadron”5 which demonstrated a norm of sexism in the military (Department of
Defense, 1993, p. 85). The inquiry heard a variety of rationalizations for the sexual misconduct
such as; women in combat roles threaten job security (1993, p. 83), the symposium was an event
to celebrate American victory in Iraq (1993, p. 82), and there was a “Top Gun” mentality (1993,
p.83). The report dismissed these rationalizations and focused on the longstanding failure of
leadership (extending well beyond Tailhook 1991) and the structural lack of accountability
related to sexual assaults. The Tailhook inquiry found that a few deviant individuals did not
cause the misconduct. Rather, it was the result of longstanding systemic problems. The report
indicated that systemic problems related to sexual assault were caused by a culture that valued
sexism, misogyny and sexual violence over respect and compassion.
The 1992 HMAS Swan Scandal

During the time of the American Tailhook inquiry, the Royal Australian Navy (RAN)
faced similar allegations of systemic sexual harassment, gender discrimination and subsequent
cover-ups. What had come to be known as the HMAS Swan scandal was triggered by incidents
occurring on board a RAN destroyer vessel named HMAS Swan in 1992. The scandal involved
all five women on board being sexually harassed or assaulted (Senate Standing Committee
Inquiry, 1994)6. The central whistleblower in the affair was Dr. Carole Wheat who reported to
the HMAS Swan Captain that she was sexually harassed and assaulted. An internal investigation

5 Phrase used to express the desire to not have women in the military and in squadrons that have historically been
male bastions.
6 HMAS stands for Her Majesty's Australian Ship and is used to designate Australian warships. As such, the HMAS
Swan scandal should not be confused with a more recent sexual violence scandal on board HMAS Success in 2011.
5