Draft

Richard A. Slemp       

Rough Draft

The United States Military is a force that is structured around rank, tradition, and has a rich sub-culture that is inherent within the system. During Basic Training, Drill Sergeants teach new recruits basic soldiering abilities:

·      Basic Rifle Marksmanship

·      Weapons Maintenance

·      Drill and Ceremony

·      Uniform regulations and professional demon

Drill Sergeants also preach that, “There is no sex, race, or gender. There is only sea of green and those around you are your family.” The purpose of this is to set a standard in which everyone can adhere to in order to maintain said standards regardless of the individual’s status. Even though the United States Army has been around since June 14^th, 1775 and has undergone a multitude of changes in structure, female soldiers are still not allowed on the battlefield and are kept in supporting MOSs.  The majority of NCOs are African-America. Officers and Warrant Officers are predominantly Caucasian. Segregation, sexism, classicism are still very much a part of the system.  

Military regulations, technical manuals, and guiding creeds are supposed to be written without sex being in the forefront of the writers mind. This removal of gender is meant to reinforce the idea that a soldier is only there uniform and their job.  Unfortunately, this is not the case. By analyzing and comparing sentence construction, images, and word choice, one can see the issues that arise: (define issue)

Some of what is included is based drawn from my experience with the United States Military. I spent 4 years as a 88 Lima (Watercraft Engineer) at Fort Eustis, Va. (needed/relevance)

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to analyze United States Army, regulations, technical manuals, and monthly publications in order to show the way military writers construct gender, sexuality, and the military mindset. Also, through this analysis the contradictions between military publications and the guidelines will be analyzed.

Army Regulation 670–1:Uniforms and Insignia Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia

Image and appearance in the United States Army is so highly regulated that it requires a 337-page document to explain. AR 670-1 is structured in a manner that it addresses the human physic beginning with the head and working its way down. Each section addresses the human anatomy based on the sex of the individual then dictates what is appropriate for the person to wear in relation to the sex of the individual. (I use the term individual loosely here. There is not meant to be one true individual just the sex of the person reading the text.)

The text also creates archetypes or a written visual image of what an ideal soldier should look like. Room for individual style is kept to a minimum, a template with only a small number of interchangeable pieces if you will. The purpose of this is to remove sex, sexual desire, masculinity and femininity from the work place. By removing these items from the work place the United States Military attempts to create a collective of functioning personnel working towards a similar goal. The best comparison I have is worker antsThere is some wiggle room for the soldier though. As we interpret our day to day lives, military text can have liberaties taken with…(trash this later keep in mind while writing) These guidelines also dictate what soldiers can and cannot wear even during their personal time:

1–13. Wear of civilian clothing

a. Civilian clothing is authorized for wear when off duty, unless the wear is prohibited by the installation commander in CONUS or by the MACOM commander overseas. Commanders down to unit level may restrict the wear of civilian clothes by those soldiers who have had their pass privileges revoked, under the provisions of AR 600–8–10.

b. When on duty in civilian clothes, Army personnel will conform to the appearance standards in this regulation, unless specifically exempted by the commander for specific mission requirements.

This does not stop at clothing:

c. Body piercing. When on any Army installation or other places under Army control, soldiers may not attach, affix, or display objects, articles, jewelry, or ornamentation to or through the skin while they are in uniform, in civilian clothes on duty, or in civilian clothes off duty (this includes earrings for male soldiers). The only exception is for female soldiers, as indicated in paragraph 1–14d, below. (The term “skin” is not confined to external skin, but includes the tongue, lips, inside the mouth, and other surfaces of the body not readily visible).

d. Females are authorized to wear prescribed earrings with the service, dress, and mess uniforms.

(1) Earrings may be screw-on, clip-on, or post-type earrings, in gold, silver, white pearl, or diamond. The earrings will not exceed 6 mm or 1⁄4 inch in diameter, and they must be unadorned and spherical. When worn, the earrings will fit snugly against the ear. Females may wear earrings only as a matched pair, with only one earring per ear lobe.

(2) Females are not authorized to wear earrings with any class C (utility) uniform (BDU, hospital duty, food service, physical fitness, field, or organizational).

(3) When on duty in civilian attire, female soldiers must comply with the specifications listed in (1) above when wearing earrings, unless otherwise authorized by the commander. When females are off duty, there are no restrictions on the wear of earrings. (Page 6)

To draw further inference from this block quote and address the issues of masculinity and gender, one must analyze the structure of the writing.

“When on any Army installation or other places under Army control, soldiers may not attach, affix, or display objects, articles, jewelry, or ornamentation to or through the skin while they are in uniform, in civilian clothes on duty, or in civilian clothes off duty (this includes earrings for male soldiers).”

Male soldiers are not even allowed to accessorize off duty; even though female soldiers on duty are highly regulated, they are allowed to wear earrings. Off Duty they are allowed to wear what they please. Female soldiers are granted individuality based upon their sex. As to where male soldiers are expected to be further removed from society. The parenthesis indicates a marginalization of male individuality. As if, the idea of a male wearing earrings should not even be a thought but foot note in the males mind only to be addressed in the most miniscule sense. For both male and female soldiers, the idea of body modification is marginalized.

Personally, I have two-ear piercings; during my time with the military, I wore them in public. Prior to arriving to the front gate of Fort Eustis, I would remove my earrings. If they were left in my ear, I would be forced to remove them. On occasion, if a NCO was working, he would take my name, rank, unit, and squad leaders name. Then place a call and inform them of the infraction. (Personal stories needed? Probably not)