The Culture That Exists in the Australian Defence Force and the Contemporary Australian Society - Essay Example

The Culture That Exists in the Australian Defence Force and the Contemporary Australian Society Introduction Everysociety has its quirks and perks. Every group has its own peculiarity, a culture or tradition that roots from its history and the peoples or individuals that formed it, stayed with it, and prevailed throughout the years. These are the results of the continuing social interaction of peoples as they introduce themselves, create an image in the group, and sustain the image with succeeding actions that validates claims and identity. This social understanding in groups was established depending on the member that prevailed and the behaviours that were accepted and practised by such group. Many types of groups have emerged throughout history, some of them call their groups a nation, some a country, an ethnicity, a colour, a race, a gang, a society, an institution, an organisation, certain profession, and many others. One, two or more characteristics differentiate one group from the others. Other groups want to be as distinct as possible taking extreme behaviours and actions to attain such identity. This paper will try to describe the culture that exists in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) as described by Dr. Ben Wadham in the article The dark side of mateship in Australian military ranks and how it reflects contemporary Australian society. Discussion Gender or sexuality is one characteristic that is inherent among individuals. It is considered as one of the major distinctive identification of an individual present in all societies and groups (Abrams et al, 2003, 114). Equality of gender is a major contention in Wadham’s article and the focus of this paper where contemporary Australian society’s culture shall be measured. Wadham described the several incidents that rocked the ADF on its bid to implement equality and non-discriminatory acts within its premises, personnel, training, hierarchy, and culture. Amongst the perverse actions that were not civilly acceptable perpetrated in the group include the event aboard the HMAS Swan about “man’s culture of sexually predatory behaviour, habitual binge drinking and bullying and intimidation of female personnel,” about a cadet from the Australian Defence Force Academy who apparently broadcasted his sexual act with a female cadet to a group of other cadets in a nearby room, “gang rape, or the cases of women officers such as Robyn Fahey or Kelly Wiggins, tell of persistent practices of sexual depravity,” amongst others. These despite efforts to increase women among the military ranks, zero-tolerance policy, establishment of the Defence Equity Organisation in 1997, and the gender equity education program developed (Wadham, 1). The Defence command itself was described as blind by Wadham, its culture of manhood impenetrable, and the socialised solidarity training of soldiers as bullet-proof. Wadham observed that indiscretions are most pronounced where group identity is most intense such as in training establishments, arms corps, and the navy ships. This prevalent behaviour of the ADF may be linked to what Christopher and Mull (223) observed that different facets of conservative ideology are predictive of hostile and benevolent sexism. Wadham proposed that in these circumstances, “culture is established around men and their ideas of manhood” and that “Warfare is almost an exclusively male enterprise.” Wadham pointed out that the ADF is a male domain where exclusion of others is practised through the use of language and practices that marginalise, and subordinate others – specifically the other gender which is the women. The case was said to be an inherent paradox of militarism where men work closely together (Wadham, 1) which results to bravery, courage and sacrifice in combat and warfare. This made them hostile to others they consider as “outsiders” incidentally, the women who join the ranks. This hostile sexist attitude holds the desire for hierarchy with the traditional notion that males dominate females thus, a resentment towards women who appear to challenge this power of men (Glick and Fiske, 498). Wadham went as far as cite the other gender as “the enemy” fought with perverse sexuality, racist words, bullying and intimidation at the same time intensifying group solidarity with binge drinking and sharing sexual adventures. This behaviour supports Abrams et al’s (117) observation on two kinds of sexism: the benevolent and the hostile. In an instance of sexual abuse, the woman victim is viewed by the benevolent as due to inappropriate behaviour of the woman, and the hostile may himself be the perpetrator. It should be noted that sexism itself is a product of what was earlier mentioned as “conservative ideology” encompassing beliefs on social dominance orientation (Christopher and Mull; Sidanius and Pratto, 96), right-wing authoritarianism, (Altemeyer, 18) and even the so-called Protestant work ethic (Furnham, 78). These beliefs and behaviours are the products of various concerns, focus on certain relationships, and even the different facets of conservatism. Such can be said on the social dominance orientation which applies to conflict between groups. This is applicable too, on the two gender groups in the ADF as one gender group perceives power threat from another, thus, the commitment of unacceptable and hostile actions. However, it is not only in the military or defence sector that male dominance in professions or career is at work. Recent scandals in the global organisation International Monetary Fund leadership and work culture (Appelbaum and Stollberg, 1) are also indicative of the prevalence of inequality of the sexes even in so-called first world nations. In Australia, it was observed by Flood (339) that “male-male social bonds have a powerful influence on the sexual relations of some young heterosexual men.” In Flood’s study, there were four ways that “homosociality,” defined by Bird (22) as social bonds between individuals of the same gender, organise men’s sociosexual relations: for some men, the same gender friendships is a priority over male-female relations; that platonic friendships with women is feminising; that sexual activity is a path to masculine status where other men are the audience of the activity; and that men’s sexual narrative is shaped by homosocial masculine cultures. The study focused on the relationships of men in a social context and sexual culture (Flood, 340). The study found “ritualised sexual humiliation of a woman for men’s collective amusement” (Flood, 341) reminiscent of the sexual act committed by a cadet with a female cadet whilst being aired on another room for other male cadets. Homosocial bonds play an important role in men’s social relations such that “secual practices between older and younger men or boys establish or confirm masculinity (Flood, 341). Another disturbing observation, however, was pointed out by Boswell and Spade (1996) that tight bonds among groups of men dictate the institutional ordering in the military, bureaucracy, and workplaces. And this is met through exclusion of women and emphasis on men’s superiority and distinction. Male dominance is also sustained by their informal male relationships and networks such as indicated in the phrase “old boy’s club” or “for the boys”. In the extreme, violence is resorted to for intra and inter-gender hierarchies (Boswell and Spade, 141). Group membership, however, is not seen as the justification of abuse in some cultures that promote violence against women but norms of gender inequality (Rosen et al, 1049). Flood incidentally echoed Wadhan’s (2011) observations which already were earlier highlighted by Burton (46) which consistently described ADFA as deeply hierarchical, masculine, and homosocial. The ADFA men’s relationship has a “culture of mateship built on sexism and homophobia, competitive banter, and emphasizing stereotypically masculine exploits including military training itself as well as drinking alcohol and picking up women,” (Flood, 346). This homosocial relation amongst men was not limited in the men at the ADFA but extends outside of it and cultivated as early as secondary school when young men aggressively pursue sexual exploits with the other gender with the prodding and monitoring of their peers. This was defined in a status description of first base as kissing a girl, second base as touching her breasts, third base as touching her most private parts, and home run as having intercourse (Flood, 347). In university, subtle expressions are used such as “sneaky little comments” or “throw-away lines” although some may actually be ambiguous (Flood, 347). Among females in Australia, growing assertion of sexual desire was seen as imperatives of heterosexual femininity where sex is separated from love, demanding sexual pleasure, pursuing one-night stands, non-monogamous relationships and even older male partners (Stewart, Mischwski, and Smith, 412). Not all young men in Flood’s study (348) however, indicted the same male-male homo-social attitude as two subjects shared that they initiate bonding and sensitivity with their female friends through discussion of feminine topics. They charm, dance, dress nicely, or stimulate women’s minds instead of just pursuing sex. The men interviewed also said they like dancing, talking, flirting, and complimenting women. Conclusion The hostile acts, abusive incidents and other gender-related inequalities that were revealed and documented in ADF and ADFA reflect a bigger societal problem prevalent not only in Australia but elsewhere. Patriarchal cultures had been traced to the physical prowess of men over women throughout history with much reference to war and conquest of one group to another. These societal patters prevailed over time as part of tradition of many societies around the world. However, changing political and social pressures and demands require same societies to adapt a more acceptable and civilised societal order that promote equality and fairness not only amongst races or colours, physical abilities and citizenship but also on genders. This has emerged due to shifting roles, expectations, and circumstances that societies cannot ignore. Promoting gender equality and acceptance in the male dominated armed forces and other sectors, however, remain problematic, not only in Australia but elsewhere. This could be traced to the fact that there are innate female and male characteristics that remain widely disparate despite the clamour for sameness and inequality such as physical prowess and aggression – major qualities in the armed forces that cannot be just set aside and that which are not immediately feminine in nature. Diversity, on the other hand, should be the focus of a society that hopes to achieve just and fair systems and societies. Acceptance and respect for distinct qualities on each individual and making full use and advantage of them for the benefit of the individual and the majority should be the overarching goal. This will work not only on everyday existence but also improve relationships between individuals and groups. Works Cited Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 111–125. 2003. Altemeyer, B. The 20-item RWA scale. Unpublished manuscript. 1998. Appelbaum, B.,and Stolberg, S.G. At I.M.F., Men on Prowl and Women on Guard. New York Times. May 19, 2011. Accessed from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/business/20fund.html?ref=nyregion (Web) Bird, S. R. Welcome to the men’s club: Homosociality and the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity. Gender & Society 10 (2): 120-32. 1996. Burton, C. Women in the Australian Defence Force: Two studies. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. 1996. Boswell, A., and J. Z. Spade. Fraternities and collegiate rape culture: Why are some fraternities more dangerous places for women? Gender & Society 10:133-47. 1996. Christopher, A. and Mull, M. Conservative Ideology and Ambivalent Sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly 30:223. 2006. Flood, M. Men, Sex, and Homosociality: How Bonds between Men Shape Their Sexual Relations with Women. Men and Masculinities 10: 339. 2008. Furnham, A. The Protestant work ethic: The psychology of work-related beliefs and behaviours. London: Routledge. 1990. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. 1996. Rosen, L. N., R. J. Kaminski, A. M. Parmley, K. H. Knudson, and P. Fancher. The effects of peer group climate on intimate partner violence among married male U.S. Army soldiers. Violence against Women 9 (9): 1045-71. 2003. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1999. Stewart, F., A. Mischewski, and A. M. A. Smith. “I want to do what I want to do”: Young adults resisting sexual identities. Critical Public Health 10 (4): 409-20. 2000. Wadham, B. The dark side of mateship in Australian military ranks", Crikey. http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/04/06/the-dark-side-of-mateship-in-australian-military-ranks/ . Accessed 22 August 2011 (Web) Read More