Chapter Two
DATA ANALYSIS: SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATION OF
WOMEN IN THE SERVICES
This chapter compares the four services in terms of representation of
women overall and across specific occupations and units. The tables
in this chapter summarize the larger and more comprehensive tables
in the companion volume (Beckett and Chien, 2002).
GENDER REPRESENTATION ACROSS THE SERVICES
This report addresses gender representation in military occupations
but does not attempt to determine the correct level of representation. Absent high-level guidance from Congress, policymakers, or
the military services, it is unclear what the integration target should
be. Should the occupations open to women all be integrated to the
same extent? This hardly seems like a logical approach. There are
occupations with assignment restrictions for women, and there are
occupations, such as nursing, that have traditionally included relatively high numbers of women. Thus, absent any policy or legal
guidance about integration targets, this work compares the level of
representation to that of the appropriate service and notes where
differences in representation are statistically significant, without
necessarily meaning to imply that such differences have policy significance.
Representation levels differ among occupations for multiple reasons.
A primary factor is time elapsed; it does require a full career cycle to
completely integrate an occupation. Nonetheless, these data indicate a range of integration progress. Determining the specific reasons for the level of gender representation in any particular occupation requires additional qualitative analysis, such as that in Chapter
13
14
The Status of Gender Integration in the Military
Three. Regardless, the statistical analysis suggested which occupations would be the best candidates for such further analysis and also
provided a catalog of current progress to be used as a benchmark for
future analysis.
Table 2.1 shows the percentage of enlisted personnel, officers, and
(for the Army) warrant officers in the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and
Air Force and for all four services combined. Overall, 14 percent of
enlisted personnel and officers are women. The Marines have a
significantly lower representation of women, with the percentage
ranging from 5 to 6 percent of all enlisted personnel and officers.
The other three services have about approximately the same percentage of women, with the Air Force reporting the highest percentages (16 percent of enlisted personnel and 18 percent of officers).
OCCUPATIONS AND UNITS CLOSED TO WOMEN
Table 2.2 shows the number of positions in occupations that are
closed to women. The percentage of occupations closed across services varies considerably, reflecting differences across services in the
proportion of occupations that engage in direct combat or that collocate with direct combat units. The companion volume lists all occupations closed to women (Beckett and Chien, 2002, Tables D.1
through D.4), as well as the units closed to women for the Army and
Marines (Beckett and Chien, 2002, Tables D.7 and D.8). The number
of positions in occupations closed in the Navy underestimates the
Table 2.1
Female Personnel
Officers
Service
Army
Navy
Air Force
Marine Corps
Total
%
14.74
14.32
16.8
4.90
14.48
Total
Number
65,981
53,893
70,320
17,894
Enlisted
%
15.17
13.16
18.83
6.00
14.29
Warrant Officers
Total
Number
396,152
314,272
286,170
154,830
SOURCE: Third quarter 1999 Perstempo file.
aNavy and Marine Corps officer numbers include warrant officers.
%
6.70
—a
N/A
—a
—
Total
Number
11,491
Data Analysis: Summary of Representation of Women in the Services
15
Table 2.2
Number of Positions in Occupations
Closed to Women
Service
Army
Air Force
Marine Corps
Officers
Enlisted
Warrant
Officers
8,318
61
2,623
114,782
1,623
28,187
557
N/A
—a
SOURCE: Third quarter 1999 Perstempo file.
NOTE: Navy data not included here because, by
nature, it requires a ship-by-ship analysis for each
occupation.
a Marine Corps officer numbers include warrant
officers.
actual number of closed positions because, in the Navy, the status of
a position depends on the occupation and the ship type. 1 For
instance, a particular officer occupation might be open on amphibious warfare ships but closed on submarines, because women cannot
be assigned to submarines. However, since the occupation is open
on some ship types but not others, the occupation is classified as
“open.” Thus, most officer occupations will be classified as open.
OCCUPATIONS NEWLY OPENED TO WOMEN
The central objective of this report is to evaluate the representation
of women in newly opened occupations and units. Tables 2.3
through 2.6 present the newly opened occupations for each of the
services, including the number of women in each newly opened
occupation as of the end of 1998, the total number of personnel, and
the percentage female. Each table notes whether the newly opened
occupations are enlisted, officer, or warrant officer positions. Each
table also characterizes the newly opened occupations by DoD
occupational group (e.g., Tactical Operations Officers) and summarizes the representation in the newly opened occupations by these
groupings.
______________
1 The following ship types remain closed to women in the Navy: submarines, mine-
countermeasure ships, mine-hunter craft, and patrol craft. Some other ships remain
functionally closed because of the costs associated with reconfiguring ships.
Utopia
Tactical Operations
Officers
Other Technical and
Allied Specialists
Infantry, Gun Crews, and
Seamanship Specialists
152B
152D
152F
152G
82C
12C
12Z
OH-58 A/C Scout Pilot
OH-58D Scout Pilot
AH-64 Pilot
AH-1 Pilot
Total warrant officers
Field Artillery Surveyor
Total enlisted
Bridge Crewmember
Combat Engineer
Subtotal
Description
R
SOURCE: First quarter 1998 Perstempo file; 12C data from U.S. Army.
aAsterisk indicates significant at p < 0.05 level.
b Representation is lower than the group mean.
Warrant Officers
Enlisted
Code
Newly Opened Occupations, Army
Table 2.3
2.3 *b
2.5 *b
1.1 *b
1.2 *b
1.8 *b
7.2 *b
5.3 *b
4
15
9
1
29
64
106
40
0
42
Number
Women
5.3 *b
0.0 *b
3.8 *b
%a
Total
173
570
826
83
1,652
888
1,996
756
352
1,108
Personnel
✺❁❐❆
16
The Status of Gender Integration in the Military
Utopia
Enlisted
Electrical/Mechanical
Equipment Repairers
Communications and
Intelligence Specialists
Electronic Equipment Repairers
Infantry, Gun Crews, and
Seamanship Specialists
ABE
GS
GSE
AW
EW
FC
STG
GM
GMG
GMM
Code
Subtotal
Subtotal
R
Recovery
Gas Turbine System Technician
Gas Turbine System Technician—
Electrical
Subtotal
Aviation Warfare System Operator
Electronic Warfare Technician
Fire Controlman
Sonar Technician—Surface
Gunner’s Mate
Gunner’s Mate—Guns
Gunner’s Mate—Missiles
Description
Newly Opened Occupations, Navy
Table 2.4
53
1
44
2.8 *b
0.4 *b
2.5 *b
147
3.4 *b
5.3 *b
54
93
536
3.0 *b
8.9 *b
2.2 *b
4.9 *b
70
182
354
1.6 *b
70
0
0
1.6 *b
0.0 *b
0.0
Number
Women
%a
Total
✺❁❐❆
1,677
1,824
255
4,334
2,445
1,889
10,124
6,129
3,995
4,409
4,402
6
1
Personnel
Data Analysis: Summary of Representation of Women in the Services
17
Utopia
SOURCE: First quarter 1998 Perstempo file.
aAsterisk indicates significant at p < 0.05 level.
b Representation is lower than the group mean.
GSM
Code
R
Total, enlisted
Subtotal
Gas Turbine System Technician—
Mechanical
Description
Table 2.4—Continued
938
2.4 *b
4.0
87
132
2.5 *b
Number
Women
%a
✺❁❐❆
25,944
6,987
3,231
Personnel
Total
18
The Status of Gender Integration in the Military
Utopia
Officers
Tactical Operations Officers
12BXB
12BXC
12FXF
12FXG
12SXH
11BXA
11BXC
11FXB
11FXF
11FXG
11FXH
11SXC
11SXF
11SXG
12BXA
Code
R
Bomber Pilot, B-1
Bomber Pilot, B-52
Fighter Pilot, A-10
Fighter Pilot, F-15
Fighter Pilot, F-15E
Fighter Pilot, F-16
Special Operations Pilot, AC-130H
Special Operations Pilot, MC-130E
Special Operations Pilot, MC-130H
Bomber Navigator, B-1 Defensive Systems
Officer EWO
Bomber Navigator, Offensive Systems Officer
Bomber Navigator, B-1 WSO
Fighter Navigator, F-15E WSO
Fighter Navigator, F-15E EWO
Special Operations Navigator, MC-130E EWO
Description
Newly Opened Occupations, Air Force
Table 2.5
Number
5
0
4
6
3
7
1
1
0
1
0
4
5
0
0
2.3 *b
0.0 *b
1.1 *b
0.8 *b
0.9 *b
0.5 *b
3.0 *b
4.2 *b
0.0 *b
2.7 *b
0.0 *b
2.6 *b
1.8 *b
0.0 *b
0.0 *b
Women
%a
Total
✺❁❐❆
36
39
148
285
5
15
222
221
377
717
347
1,350
33
24
70
Personnel
Data Analysis: Summary of Representation of Women in the Services
19
Utopia
SOURCE: First quarter 1998 Perstempo file.
aAsterisk indicates significant at p < 0.05 level.
b Representation is lower than the group mean.
R
Total officers
Description
Special Operations Navigator, MC-130E EWO
Special Operations Navigator, MC-130H EWO
Special Operations Navigator, MC-130H
Code
12SXJ
12SXK
12SXL
Table 2.5—Continued
Number
0
0
0
37
0.0 *b
0.0 *b
0.0 *b
0.9 *b
Women
%a
✺❁❐❆
3,995
25
42
39
Personnel
Total
20
The Status of Gender Integration in the Military
Utopia
Enlisted
Electronic Equipment
Repairers
Infantry, Gun Crews, and
Seamanship Specialists
R
6322
6315
5948
5942
5937
5939
0481
1371
7372
Code
Aviation Radio Repairer
Aviation Radio
Technician
Aviation Radar Repairer
(AN/TPS-59)
Aviation Radar
Technician
A/C Comm./
Navigation/Electrical
Systems Technician,
AV-8
Aircraft Comm./
Navigation/Electrical
Systems Technician,
CH-46
Subtotal
Landing Support
Specialist
Combat Engineer
First Navigator
Description
Newly Opened Occupations, Marine Corps
Table 2.6
2.5 *b
4.1
6.1
8
8
2
6
3
6.1
3.0
3
53
1.8 *b
2.6
19
32
2
Number
Women
2.8 *b
1.5 *b
2.6
%a
Total
313
195
56
110
49
101
2,869
658
2,136
75
Personnel
✺❁❐❆
Data Analysis: Summary of Representation of Women in the Services
21
Utopia
Electrical Mechanical
Equipment Repairers
Other Technical and
Allied Specialists
Communications and
Intelligence Specialists
6015
6055
2336
2671
7242
R
Aircraft Mechanic,
AV-8/TAV-8
Aircraft Airframe
Mechanic, AV-8/
TAV-8
6
2
0.9 *b
1
1.3 *b
0.4 *b
34
Subtotal 14.1*c
Explosive Ordnance
Disposal Technician
28
17.1*c
70
21
19
Number
Women
6
4.4
5.4
4.8
%a
7.8
Arabic Cryptologic
Linguist
Air Support Operations
Operator
Subtotal
Aircraft Comm./
Navigation/Electrical
Systems Technician,
CH-53
Aircraft Comm./
Navigation/Electrical
Systems Technician,
U/AH-1
6323
6324
Description
Code
Table 2.6—Continued
Total
227
454
243
241
164
77
1,607
388
395
Personnel
✺❁❐❆
22
The Status of Gender Integration in the Military
Utopia
Officers
Tactical Operations
Officer
7210
1302
5702
6154
6135
6119
6114
R
10
1
1.1 *b
9.4
14
2.6 *b
4.7
43
201
1.6 *
Subtotal
Total Enlisted
Engineer Officer
Nuclear, Biological &
Chemical Defense
Officer
Air Defense Control
Officer
6
0
0
10
8
b
0.0 *b
0.0 *b
2.3 *b
1.8 *b
11
Number
Women
2.1 *b
%a
1.4 *b
Helicopter Mechanic,
CH-46
Helicopter Mechanic,
CH-53
Helicopter Mechanic,
U/AH-1
Helicopter/Tiltrotor
Maintenance Chief
Aircraft Power Plants
Test Cell Operator,
Rotary Wing/Tiltrotor
Helicopter Airframe
Mechanic, A/UH-1
6112
6113
Description
Code
Table 2.6—Continued
Total
106
87
300
7,582
2,622
425
23
86
441
446
520
Personnel
✺❁❐❆
Data Analysis: Summary of Representation of Women in the Services
23
Utopia
7557
7541
7543
7551
7555
7556
7525
7527
R
Mission
Specialist/Navigation
Officer
FRS Basic AV-8B Pilot
Pilot VMA-AV-8B
Pilot VMA (AW) A-6
FRS Basic F/A-18 Pilot
Pilot VMFA F/A-18
FRS Basic F/A-18D
Weapons Sensors
Officer
F/A-18D WSO
Pilot VMFA F/A-18D
Qualified
FRS Basic EA-6B Pilot
Pilot VMAQ/EA-6B
Pilot C-9
Pilot, UC-12B
KC-130 Co-Pilot
(T2P/T3P)
KC-130 Aircraft
Commander
7380
7507
7509
7511
7521
7523
7524
Description
Code
Table 2.6—Continued
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.0
0.0
0.0 *b
0.0 *b
0.0 *b
1.0 *b
0
0
0
0.0 *b
0.0 *b
0.0 *b
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number
Women
0.0 *b
0.0 *b
0.0 *b
0.0
0.0 *b
0.0 *b
%a
Total
118
100
1
1
58
3
11
13
148
14
30
269
1
50
402
Personnel
✺❁❐❆
24
The Status of Gender Integration in the Military
Utopia
0
0
35
1.0 *b
Subtotal
R
0
0
0.0 *b
0.0
1
1
0
3
0
0
0.5 *b
0.8 *b
0.0 *b
1.0 *b
0.0 *b
0.0 *b
3
0.5 *b
0.0 *b
0.0 *b
7598
7595
7591
7564
7565
7566
7567
7568
7577
7563
1
0
0
0
33.3
0.0 *b
0.0 *b
0.0 *b
FRS Basic CH-53D Pilot
Pilot CT-39
FRS Basic CH-53E Pilot
FRS Basic CH-46 Pilot
Pilot HMH/M/L/
A CH-46
Pilot HMH/M/L/
A UH-1
CH-53 A/D Qualified
Pilot HMH/M/L/A AH-1
Pilot HMH CH-53E
FRS UH-1N Pilot
FRS Basic AH-1 Pilot
Weapons & Tactics
Instructor
Naval Flight Officer
(VMAW)
Test Pilot/Flight Test
Project Officer
Basic Fixed Wing Pilot
Number
Women
7558
7559
7560
7561
7562
%a
Description
Code
Table 2.6—Continued
Total
3,420
8
63
2
4
203
129
318
301
12
26
590
3
5
28
16
Personnel
✺❁❐❆
Data Analysis: Summary of Representation of Women in the Services
25
Utopia
R
7599
Nonoccupational
SOURCE: First quarter 1998 Perstempo file.
aAsterisk indicates significant at p < 0.05 level.
b Representation is lower than the group mean.
cRepresentation is higher than the group mean.
1390
2305
7596
Supply, Procurement
and Allied Officers
Engineering and
Maintenance Officers
Code
Total officers
Flight Student
Bulk Fuel Officer
Subtotal
Explosive Ordnance
Disposal Officer
Aviation Safety Officer
Description
Table 2.6—Continued
1.5
3.9
66
31
0
0
0.0 *b
0.0 *b
0
0
Number
Women
0.0 *b
0.0 *b
%a
Total
4,308
799
29
60
35
25
Personnel
✺❁❐❆
26
The Status of Gender Integration in the Military
Data Analysis: Summary of Representation of Women in the Services
27
Table 2.7 provides the percentages of these newly opened occupations that underrepresent women relative to their level of representation among the service’s officers and enlisted personnel. Most newly
opened occupations have lower levels of gender representation than
the service overall. In the Army, women are statistically underrepresented in each of the three newly opened enlisted MOSs and in each
of the four newly opened MOSs for warrant officers. Likewise, in the
Navy, women are underrepresented in ten of the eleven newly
opened enlisted ratings; in the Air Force, women are underrepresented in each of the 18 newly opened occupations.
However, there are two important issues to remember when observing this phenomenon. First, even if women entered all occupations
at representative levels, it would take a full career cycle—as long as
15 to 20 years in some instances—for representation in these careers
to resemble that of the service overall. Indeed, some evidence indicates that women may still be in the training pipeline leading to
some of these newly opened officer positions, at least in the Marine
Corps. Most of the newly opened Marine officer positions are pilots.
As of 1998, about 4 percent of flight students (MOS 7599) were
women, which is not statistically different from the overall percentage of Marine officers who are female (5.6 percent). The absolute
number of women in the newly opened MOSs among Marine pilot
and naval flight officers has increased since 1996. In 1996, 29 women
were in newly opened MOSs in the 7500 series (Table B.17 in Harrell
and Miller, 1997), compared with 41 women as of first quarter 1998
(Table 2.6). The number of women in these positions is increasing
Table 2.7
Newly Opened Occupations With Gender Representation
Lower Than Service Overall
Officers
Service
Army
Navy
Air Force
Marine Corps
Warrant Officersa
Enlisted
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
—
—
100.0
78.4
0
0
18
37
100.0
90.9
—
54.5
3
11
0
22
100.0
4
SOURCE: First quarter 1998 Perstempo file.
a Because the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps have only small numbers of
warrant officers, they are classified with all officers.
28
The Status of Gender Integration in the Military
each year and, if the representation of women in flight school reflects
the future, may achieve parity across most of these positions as
women progress through the Marine pilot pipeline. Unfortunately,
the limited scope of this project restricts our ability to identify comparable data trends in the other services for the newly opened positions. However, Chapter Three explores such issues for selected
occupational areas.
It is not reasonable to expect the newly opened occupations to have
reached representative levels already. The rate at which they might
do so depends on the retention of the people already in the occupation, the rate at which women and men are entering the occupation,
and the length of time the occupation has been open to women. For
example, if there are 1,000 people in a career field and if people stay
for an average of 15 years, the turnover is only 6.6 percent each year,
and only approximately 67 people enter that career field annually. If
Army enlisted women are entering this field at a representative rate
(15.3 percent), approximately 11 women enter it each year. If the
occupation had opened to women in 1994, not more than 77, or 7.7
percent of the total personnel in this occupation, would be female.
For occupations with shorter average retention, the expected representation would be higher. Without knowing the average retention
of individuals in each career and exactly when each career field
opened to women, it is not possible to ascertain an expected representation level. However, many of the representation rates of the
newly opened occupations, as indicated in Tables 2.3 through 2.7,
appear low even given conservative assumptions.
Many of these careers are among classes of occupations that currently underrepresent women, even in occupations that were previously open to women. This suggests that women may not be entering the occupation at representative rates. The difference in levels of
representation among previously open careers is apparent in Tables
2.8 through 2.11, which summarize the representation of all previously open occupations by major category (the tables are restricted
to occupations with at least 10 personnel). These tables indicate that
women have tended toward careers in health care, administration,
and intelligence, even when careers in other areas were available.2
______________
2 The full (open) occupational list is shown in Tables D.9 through D.17 of Beckett and
Chien (2002).
Data Analysis: Summary of Representation of Women in the Services
Table 2.8
Summary of Gender Representation in Previously
Open Army Occupations
Women
Total
%a
Number
Pers.
Enlisted
Infantry, Gun Crews, and Seamanship
Specialists
Electronic Equipment Repairers
Communications and Intelligence Specialists
Health Care Specialists
Other Technical and Allied Specialists
Functional Support and Administration
Electrical/Mechanical Equipment Repairers
Craftsworkers
Service and Supply Handlers
Total enlisted
12.1*b
11.1*b
20.4*c
31.6*c
16.5
35.7*c
9.9 *b
11.7*b
20.4*c
21.9
472
2,887
5,061
10,446
1,992
21,605
4,752
908
9,727
57,850
3,916
26,058
24,765
33,082
12,097
60,434
48,007
7,743
47,686
263,788
Officers
General Officers and Executives, NEC
Tactical Operations Officers
Intelligence Officers
Engineering and Maintenance Officers
Scientists and Professionals
Health Care Officers
Administrators
Supply, Procurement and Allied Officers
Nonoccupational
Total officers
3.5 *b
5.3 *b
16.3*c
15.5*c
9.8 *b
30.7*c
19.9*c
16.0*c
12.5*b
16.7
12
605
540
782
447
3,752
819
936
227
8,120
346
11,330
3,307
5,044
4,550
12,223
4,110
5,840
1,813
48,563
Warrant officers
Tactical Operations Officers
Intelligence Officers
Engineering and Maintenance Officers
Scientists and Professionals
Health Care Officers
Administrators
Supply, Procurement and Allied Officers
Total warrant officers
2.2 *b
13.2*c
3.3 *b
21.3*c
17.8*c
16.7*c
19.2*c
7.7
59
116
78
13
24
112
190
592
2,264
880
2,334
61
135
669
990
7,693
Description
SOURCE: First quarter 1998 Perstempo file.
aAsterisk indicates significant at p < 0.05 level.
b Representation is lower than the group mean.
cRepresentation is higher than the group mean.
29
30
The Status of Gender Integration in the Military
Table 2.9
Summary of Gender Representation in
Previously Open Navy Occupations
Women
Total
%a
Number
Pers.
Enlisted
Infantry, Gun Crews, and Seamanship
Specialists
Electronic Equipment Repairers
Communications and Intelligence Specialists
Health Care Specialists
Other Technical and Allied Specialists
Functional Support and Administration
Electrical/Mechanical Equipment Repairers
Craftsworkers
Service and Supply Handlers
Nonoccupational
Total enlisted
16.5*c
7.1 *b
15.6*c
15.9*c
14.8*c
18.4*c
6.9 *b
5.9 *b
11.2*b
0.0 *b
12.1
3,470
1,054
1,637
2,514
209
1,029
1,484
347
492
—
12,236
21,053
14,743
10,516
15,766
1,415
5,593
21,613
5,920
4,382
15
101,009
Officers
General Officers and Executives, NEC
Tactical Operations Officers
Intelligence Officers
Engineering and Maintenance Officers
Scientists and Professionals
Health Care Officers
Administrators
Supply, Procurement and Allied Officers
Nonoccupational
Total officers
16.9*c
4.0 *b
25.2*c
6.6 *b
15.7*c
33.2*c
20.0*c
10.5*b
24.0*c
14.8
405
520
576
513
618
2,682
966
244
125
6,649
2,391
12,911
2,289
7,769
3,927
8,076
4,821
2,882
520
45,036
Description
SOURCE: First quarter 1998 Perstempo file.
aAsterisk indicates significant at p < 0.05 level.
b Representation is lower than the group mean.
cRepresentation is higher than the group mean.
It is important to note that it was not possible to determine from the
data the extent to which these career choices are a result of selfselection or systemic limitations. For example, recruiter and career
counselor attitudes, not just technical manpower models, may influence career assignment. That is, if the models that determine which
occupations are available to new recruits do not offer new female
recruits the same choices they offer to males or if recruiters or guidance counselors do not encourage female recruits to accept nontra-
Data Analysis: Summary of Representation of Women in the Services
31
ditional career areas, the expected gender representation among
nontraditional career areas would be low. This project cannot fully
examine the career assignment processes and models for all four
services, although there is separate ongoing RAND research of the
Army system.
Table 2.10
Summary of Gender Representation in Previously
Open Air Force Occupations
Women
Total
%a
Number
Pers.
Enlisted
Infantry, Gun Crews, and Seamanship
Specialists
Electronic Equipment Repairers
Communications and Intelligence Specialists
Health Care Specialists
Other Technical and Allied Specialists
Functional Support and Administration
Electrical/Mechanical Equipment Repairers
Craftsworkers
Service and Supply Handlers
Nonoccupational
Total enlisted
10.0*b
7.1 *b
22.6*c
42.6*c
11.7*b
31.7*c
4.0 *b
5.4 *b
17.7
24.5*c
18.2
2,487
1,924
4,824
10,708
1,323
22,493
2,705
669
2,497
1,315
50,945
24,876
27,220
21,346
25,145
11,328
70,936
67,417
12,408
14,074
5,358
280,108
Officers
General Officers and Executives, NEC
Tactical Operations Officers
Intelligence Officers
Engineering and Maintenance Officers
Scientists and Professionals
Health Care Officers
Administrators
Supply, Procurement and Allied Officers
Nonoccupational
Total officers
3.6 *b
5.2 *b
17.7
13.7*b
15.5
40.9*c
24.3*c
14.3*b
9.6 *b
17.5
32
969
294
1,178
787
5,222
1,155
904
326
10,867
882
18,814
1,665
8,573
5,089
12,779
4,750
6,343
3,380
62,275
Description
SOURCE: First quarter 1998 Perstempo file.
aAsterisk indicates significant at p < 0.05 level.
b Representation is lower than the group mean.
cRepresentation is higher than the group mean.
32
The Status of Gender Integration in the Military
Table 2.11
Summary of Gender Representation in Previously
Open Marine Corps Occupations
Women
Total
%a
Number
Pers.
Enlisted
Infantry, Gun Crews, and Seamanship
Specialists
Electronic Equipment Repairers
Communications and Intelligence Specialists
Other Technical and Allied Specialists
Functional Support and Administration
Electrical/Mechanical Equipment Repairers
Craftsworkers
Service and Supply Handlers
Nonoccupational
Total enlisted
2.7 *b
3.9 *b
7.1 *c
10.3*c
11.0*c
4.2 *b
4.7 *b
6.5 *c
8.7 *c
7.3
115
211
643
326
2,827
705
159
1,207
823
7,016
4,218
5,426
9,072
3,180
25,781
16,673
3,366
18,460
9,450
95,626
Officer
General Officers and Executives, NEC
Tactical Operations Officers
Intelligence Officers
Engineering and Maintenance Officers
Scientists and Professionals
Administrators
Supply, Procurement and Allied Officers
Nonoccupational
Total officers
1.8 *b
4.1
6.2
3.8
7.0 *c
14.2*c
7.5 *c
5.5 *c
6.8
9
16
31
55
31
205
149
172
668
507
394
502
1,454
444
1,445
1,992
3,155
9,893
Description
SOURCE: First quarter 1998 Perstempo file.
aAsterisk indicates significant at p < 0.05 level.
b Representation is lower than the group mean.
cRepresentation is higher than the group mean.
Tables 2.12 and 2.13 summarize the statistics on gender representation by major occupational category. For each service, these tables
indicate the percentage of newly opened occupations and the percentage of previously opened occupations in each class in which
women are either over- or underrepresented. A down arrow (↓) in a
cell indicates that the percentage shown reflects the percentage of
MOSs within the occupational category for which there is a statistically significant underrepresentation of women relative to the overall
%
—
—
100↓
Communications
and Intelligence
Specialists
Health Care Specialists
Other Technical
and Allied Specialists
Utopia
Functional Support and Administration
—
—
Electronic Equipment Repairers
Infantry, Gun
Crews, and Seamanship Specialists
100↓
Occupation Class
1
2
86↑
39↑
88↑
55↑
50↓
60↓
%
21
31
17
20
28
5
No.
Previously
Open
Army
No.
Newly
Open
—
—
—
100↓ 2
100↓ 2
66↓ 3
%
R
55↑
30↓
47↑
35↑
54↓
59↓
%
42
27
47
62
157
17
No.
Previously
Open
Navy
No.
Newly
Open
—
—
—
—
—
—
%
No.
Newly
Open
49↑
53↓
74↑
45↑
98↓
79↓
%
51
34
39
42
46
14
No.
Previously
Open
Air Force
—
100↓
—
50↓
13↓
100↓
%
1
2
8
2
No.
Newly
Open
64↑
28↑
—
25↑
35↓
89↓
%
✺❁❐❆
33
29
28
54
18
No.
Previously
Open
Marine Corps
Newly Opened and Previously Opened Enlisted Occupations That Over or Underrepresent Women , 1998
Table 2.12
Data Analysis: Summary of Representation of Women in the Services
33
80↓
60↑
—
Service and Supply
Handlers
—
Nonoccupational
10
15
34
No.
—
—
—
100↓ 4
%
No.
Newly
Open
100↓
31↑↓
59↓
54↓
%
1
13
44
125
No.
Previously
Open
Navy
—
—
—
—
%
No.
Newly
Open
13↑↓
71↓
80↓
100↓
%
8
14
15
61
No.
Previously
Open
Air Force
—
—
100↓
%
8
No.
Newly
Open
50↑
29↓
36↓
63↓
%
8
21
11
60
No.
Previously
Open
Marine Corps
Utopia
R
✺❁❐❆
NOTES: Previously opened occupations restricted to those with at least 10 personnel. A down arrow (↓) indicates that the percentage
shown reflects the percentage of MOSs within the occupational category for which there is a statistically significant underrepresentation of women relative to the service-specific overall percentage female. An up arrow (↑) indicates that the percentage refers to the
percentage of MOSs that overrepresent women. If both arrows appear, the same percentage of occupations within the class
overrepresent women as underrepresent them.
—
88↓
%
—
No.
Craftsworkers
%
Previously
Open
Electrical/Mechanical Equipment
Repairers
—
Occupation Class
Newly
Open
Army
Table 2.12—Continued
34
The Status of Gender Integration in the Military
23↑↓
86↓
39↑
38↑
36↑
100↓
—
—
—
—
—
—
80↓
33↓
100↓
—
%
100↓
4
No.
—
%
11
1
14
71
13
13
10
6
1
No.
Previously
Open
Army
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
%
29↓
100↑
20↓
32↑
35↑
56↓
79↓
10↑↓
39↓
%
31
2
45
78
57
113
97
30
23
No.
Previously
Open
Navy
No.
Newly
Open
—
—
—
—
—
—
100↓
—
—
%
18
No.
5
No.
50↓
60↓
53↓
33↑
35↑
55↓
10
5
17
93
17
22
87↓ 135
33↑↓
3
100↓
%
Previously
Open
Air Force
Newly
Open
No.
100↓
—
—
—
—
100↓
1
1
2
81↓ 33
—
—
%
29↑
50↓
50↓
—
32↑
32↓
29↓
20↓
60↓
%
14
6
19
6
22
7
5
5
No.
Previously
Open
Marine Corps
Newly
Open
Utopia
R
✺❁❐❆
NOTES: Previously opened occupations restricted to those with at least 10 personnel. Army “Newly Open” column shows warrant
officers. A down arrow (↓) indicates that the percentage shown reflects the percentage of MOSs within the occupational category for
which there is a statistically significant underrepresentation of women relative to the service-specific overall percentage female. An up
arrow (↑) indicates that the percentage refers to the percentage of MOSs that overrepresent women. If both arrows appear, the same
percentage of occupations within the class overrepresent women as underrepresent them.
General Officers and
Executives, NEC
Tactical Operations
Officers
Intelligence Officers
Engineering and
Maintenance Officers
Scientists and
Professionals
Health Care Officers
Administrators
Supply, Procurement
and Allied Officers
Nonoccupational
Occupation Class
Newly
Open
Newly Opened and Previously Opened Officer Occupations That Over or Underrepresent Women, 1998
Table 2.13
Data Analysis: Summary of Representation of Women in the Services
35
36
The Status of Gender Integration in the Military
percentage of women within the specific service. Conversely, an up
arrow (↑) denotes that the percentage shown refers to the percentage
of MOSs that overrepresent women. For example, the first occupational class in Table 2.12 is Infantry, Gun Crews, and Seamanship
Specialists; the arrows in the Army columns indicate that 100 percent
of the two newly open occupations in this class and 60 percent of the
five previously open occupations underrepresent women. The
important point to note from these tables is that, in the majority of
cases, the same occupational classes tend to have relatively high or
low levels of gender representation, regardless of whether they are
newly opened or had been previously opened.
DIFFERENCES IN REPRESENTATION ACROSS GRADES
Because the data analyzed in this chapter are cross-sectional, rather
than longitudinal, it was difficult to capture trends in occupational
assignment. Nonetheless, it is still useful to capture the level of gender representation in the different career areas by grade. Given correct assumptions, looking at representation by junior and senior
ranks will identify some basic trends worthy of further examination.
Table 2.14 compares the occupational breakdown for female junior
officers to that for female senior officers. These data address the
issue of whether female accessions are entering the same career
areas today that they have in the past. In general, a higher percentage of female junior officers are tactical operations officers and engineering and maintenance officers, and slightly fewer are in administrative jobs. The largest portion of female officers remains in the
health care professions.
Table 2.15 presents comparable data for enlisted women. Although
junior enlisted women in all the services are much less represented
in the administrative careers than are more-senior enlisted women,
the details are otherwise different for the different services. In the
Army, there have been increases in Service and Supply Handlers,
Electrical/Mechanical Equipment Repairers, and Electronic Equipment Repairers. Navy enlisted women are now overrepresented in
combat-oriented careers and have also moved into electrical and
mechanical equipment repair occupations. Those data suggest that
they have moved away from electronic equipment repair, communications and intelligence, and health care careers. Air Force enlisted
Utopia
100
Total 100
R
0
4
5
6
7
53
12
10
3
O4–O6
Army
O1–O3
0
9
7
12
5
43
9
12
3
General Officers and Executives
Tactical Operations Officers
Intelligence Officers
Engineering and Maintenance Officers
Scientists and Professionals
Health Care Officers
Administrators
Supply, Procurement and Allied Officers
Nonoccupational
Class
Occupational
100
2
10
7
10
10
43
12
4
2
O1–O3
100
13
5
11
5
8
36
18
3
1
O4–O6
Navy
100
0
10
2
11
7
50
10
7
3
O1–O3
100
1
8
4
10
7
44
12
11
3
O4–O6
Air Force
100
0
5
5
8
4
—
29
23
26
O1–O3
✺❁❐❆
100
5
3
5
8
5
—
33
19
22
O4–O6
Marine Corps
Total Percentages of Female Junior and Senior Officer Personnel in Occupational Classes (1998)
Table 2.14
Data Analysis: Summary of Representation of Women in the Services
37
Utopia
Total
Infantry, Gun Crews, and Seamanship
Specialists
Electronic Equipment Repairers
Communications and Intelligence
Specialists
Health Care Specialists
Other Technical and Allied Specialists
Functional Support and Administration
Electrical/Mechanical Equipment
Repairers
Craftsworkers
Service and Supply Handlers
Nonoccupational
Class
Occupational
6
1
13
—
10
2
19
—
100
10
18
4
44
8
18
3
33
100
0
4
E5–E9
1
6
E1–E4
Army
R
100
15
1
2
0
10
16
1
3
45
7
E1–E4
100
9
5
7
0
20
25
3
17
2
12
E5–E9
Navy
100
5
1
6
4
10
23
3
38
6
4
E1–E4
100
6
1
4
0
8
17
3
55
3
3
E5–E9
Air Force
100
12
2
20
15
11
—
4
30
2
4
E1–E4
✺❁❐❆
100
6
2
11
4
7
—
5
57
4
4
E5–E9
Marine Corps
Total Percentages of Female Junior and Senior Enlisted Personnel in Occupational Classes (1998)
Table 2.15
38
The Status of Gender Integration in the Military
Data Analysis: Summary of Representation of Women in the Services
39
women are even more highly represented in health care careers.
Most of the increases among enlisted female Marines have been in
Service and Supply Handlers, Electrical/Mechanical Equipment
Repair, and Communications and Intelligence career classes.
It is important to note some shortcomings of this static snapshot of
representation in occupations by grade. We have used these data as
a proxy for a longitudinal assessment to compare the different career
areas of women who entered the service more recently with those
having longer tenure. However, we are unable to discern from this
data whether female personnel in different occupations have different retention patterns and thus cannot determine whether it is
problematic to make this kind of comparison. Also, some career
areas may have disproportionate numbers of positions at junior
grades or at senior grades. Given these concerns, Chapter Three further addresses the grade distributions and the trends in accessions
for selected occupations.
UNITS NEWLY OPENED TO WOMEN
So far, the discussion has focused on gender representation by occupation. Information on the representation of women in newly
opened units is spottier than occupation-specific data. All Air Force
units were opened to women before the 1992–1994 legislative and
policy changes. The Marine Corps is currently reassessing the units
that are open to women, with the likelihood of changes. Some of the
Army units newly opened to women are as small as platoons, and
data are not readily available to assess the assignment of women to
such units. We attempted to analyze gender assignment to Army and
Marine Corps units by six-digit UIC but were stymied by data
complications that suggested that UIC coding is not reliable. Thus,
Chapter Three will address issues regarding unit assignment by
gender for the selected occupations.
REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN ON NAVY SHIPS
The Secretary of the Defense’s guidance of April 28, 1993 (Aspin,
1993) and the repeal of the combat exclusion resulted in the opening
40
The Status of Gender Integration in the Military
up of ship assignments to women for most types of ships (Harrell and
Miller, 1997).3 In 1997, women held 6 percent of enlisted slots and 12
percent of officer slots on newly opened ships. Representation of
women among officers is higher than among enlisted because of the
berthing requirements. Officer assignments are flexible (and genderneutral, except for the ship types that are closed to women) because
the officer accommodations could in many cases be easily modified.
Modifications require both berthing and head facilities. For officers,
berthing requirements in many cases were very minor, as officers are
berthed mostly in double rooms. Where multiple officer heads were
available, one was designated as the female head. In other situations, officers shared the single head and used a “flip sign” that designated current use. In contrast, berthing requirements for enlisted
personnel required significant modification to accommodate
women. Because of these structural difficulties, some ships have not
been modified before their decommissioning.
As a result of the 1993 changes, the Navy developed an embarkation
plan that specified the timeline by which specific ships were to be
modified to accommodate female crew members. The embarkation
plan was designed to coincide with the existing overhaul schedule,
and thus the modifications were planned to occur when ships were
normally scheduled for overhaul. This approach prevented disruption of ships’ operational schedules and was less expensive than a
separate modification schedule would have been. While the
embarkation plan slowed the integration of women onto ships, it
meant that the Navy could assign women to ships en masse and
could assign female officers and female chief petty officers before
assigning female junior enlisted personnel. While this plan limited
the number of women being recruited in the Navy in the early years
of the embarkation plan, the expectation was that this limitation
would be short-lived and would be resolved as the transition period
ended (set for FY 2003).
______________
3 The ship types added in April 1993 were fast combat support ships, replenishment
oilers (AOR), amphibious command ships (LCC), auxiliary command ships (AGF), and
fleet staff (2,3,7). Ship types added when combat exclusion was repealed were cruisers
(CG), destroyers (DD/DDG), frigates (FF/FFG), amphibious warfare ships (LHA/LHD/
LPD/LSD/LST), mine countermeasure command and control ships (MCS), and
aircraft carriers (CV/CVN).
Data Analysis: Summary of Representation of Women in the Services
41
Table 2.16 indicates the representation, as of December 2000,
onboard ships that had been open to women before 1994. Almost
one-fourth of the enlisted personnel on these ships are female service members.
Table 2.17 summarizes personnel assignments to ships that had been
opened to women as of 1994 and that had already been structurally
modified by December 2000. 4 This table lists, by ship class, the
number of ships included and the number of positions, by gender for
male and female personnel. The representation of women on these
ships overall is lower than on previously opened ships, but DMDC’s
most recent estimates indicate that the representation of women on
both previously and newly opened ships is higher than in the Navy
overall. As of December 2000, the DoD Active Duty Profile Report
shows that, in the Navy, 13.8 percent of enlisted personnel and 14.7
percent of officers are women. Current representation onboard integrated combatant ships is also higher than that recorded as of April
1997 in the prior RAND study (Table B.12 in Harrell and Miller, 1997),
when only 6 percent of enlisted personnel, 12 percent of officers, and
7 percent of total personnel on ships were women.
Almost all surface ships, with the exception of patrol craft, are technically open to women. While ship reconfiguration has generally
been necessary for female enlisted personnel to serve on combatant
ships, this is considerably less of an issue for female officers, because
officer berthing and accommodations are generally more flexible.
Table 2.18 shows the ships that are open to women but have not yet
been structurally modified. The long-range embarkation plan is currently being revisited. For now, however, approximately 31,277
enlisted slots and 2,842 officer slots (with some exceptions noted in
the table) are closed to women until structural modification,
although female officers do serve on ships that are not available for
female enlisted members.
Table 2.19 lists the number of billets that are not open to women.
The majority of these assignments are on submarines. The Navy
______________
4 More detailed information, by individual ship, can be found in the companion vol-
ume (Beckett and Chien, 2002).
39
40
1
2
3
4
50
51
52
53
AS
AS
AOE
AOE
AOE
AOE
ARS
ARS
ARS
ARS
Emory S. Land
Frank Cable
Sacramento
Camden
Seattle
Detroit
Safeguard
Grasp
Salvor
Grapple
Total
Name
Utopia
SOURCE: U.S. Navy.
ID
Class
Ship Identification
806
950
511
484
628
555
69
47
67
58
4,175
Male
462
320
91
143
84
123
23
45
25
34
1,350
Female
Enlisted
36
25
15
23
12
18
25
49
27
37
24
R
% Female
78
77
29
47
40
45
5
N/A
N/A
6
327
Male
5
4
5
5
3
3
2
N/A
N/A
1
28
Female
Officers
6
5
15
10
7
6
29
N/A
N/A
14
8
% Female
884
1,027
1,208
1,131
668
600
74
47
67
64
5,656
Male
467
324
96
148
87
126
25
45
25
35
1,308
Female
✺❁❐❆
35
24
15
22
12
17
25
49
27
35
22
% Female
Crew Overall
Gender-Integrated Navy Ships Opened to Women Before 1994 (December 2000)
Table 2.16
42
The Status of Gender Integration in the Military
124
34
25
1,321
559
175
67
83,722
Utopia
SOURCE: U.S. Navy.
Total 90
293
5,893
493
1,167
1,260
287
454
1570
73
1,175
131
235
4,753
50,819
3,118
4,212
5,190
1,969
2,296
4,484
386
3,541
1,062
1,091
CV
1
CVN
10
CG
11
DD
18
DDG
20
LCC
2
LHA
3
LHD
6
LPD
1
LSD
12
AGF
2
AOE
2
Active Reserve Ships
MCS
1
LST
1
MHC
2
Female
Male
Ship Class No. Ships
Enlisted
13.6
18.1
16.2
27.1
5.8
10.4
13.7
21.7
19.5
12.7
16.5
25.9
16.0
24.9
11.0
17.7
Male
6,945
55
9
N/A
568
3,658
265
426
433
461
234
389
N/A
208
154
85
R
% Female
569
6
3
N/A
10
147
65
87
87
8
28
49
N/A
56
18
5
Female
Officers
7.6
9.8
25.0
N/A
1.7
3.9
19.7
17.0
16.7
1.7
10.7
11.2
N/A
21.2
10.5
5.6
% Female
89,888
614
184
67
5,321
54,477
3,057
4,638
5,623
2,430
2,530
4,873
386
3,749
1,216
1,176
Male
13,670
130
37
25
303
6,040
543
1254
1,347
295
482
1,619
73
1,231
149
240
Female
13.2
17.5
16.7
27.1
5.4
10.0
15.1
21.3
19.3
10.8
16.0
24.9
16.0
24.7
10.9
16.9
✺❁❐❆
% Female
Crews for Ship Class Overall
Gender-Integrated Navy Ships Opened to Women 1994 or Later (December 2000)
Table 2.17
Data Analysis: Summary of Representation of Women in the Services
43
44
The Status of Gender Integration in the Military
Table 2.18
Nonintegrated Navy Ships Open to Women
(December 2000)
Number
Class
of Ships
CV
1
CG
17
DD
4
DDG
11
FFG
28
LHA
2
LPD
10
LSD
3
MCM
9
MHC
2
Active Reserve Ships
FFG
8
LST
1
MCM
5
MHC
8
Total
109
Male
Female
Enlisted
Officer
5,049
5,587
1,163
3,465
5,552
1,831
4,142
1,188
675
92
578
561
101
286
520
184
252
78
54
10
Officer
11
16
6
15
2
12
12
2
0
0
1,581
209
375
368
31,277
136
12
30
40
2,842
1
5
0
1
83
SOURCE: U.S. Navy.
Table 2.19
Patrol Craft and Submarine Billets Closed to Women
(December 2000)
Total Ships
Class
Identification
PC
SSBN
SSN
SSN
SSN
SSN
2-14
726-743
21-23
640
683 & 686
688-775
SOURCE: U.S. Navy.
aAll male.
b Precommissioning.
in Class
13
18
3
1b
2
55
Total
Total Billets
Enlisted a
Officer a
299
5,040
363
107
280
6,655
12,744
65
540
39
13
30
715
1,402
Data Analysis: Summary of Representation of Women in the Services
45
kept submarines and small ships (mine countermeasures, minehunting craft, and patrol craft) closed because of prohibitive berthing
and privacy issues.
In summary, the Navy has made marked progress in integrating
women aboard previously and recently opened ships since 1997.
Women’s representation on previously open and newly open ships
(ships that have been structurally modified) is greater than their representation in the Navy overall. However, 35 percent of enlisted slots
on ships and 30 percent of officer slots on ships remain closed to
women (with some exceptions among the officer slots) because some
ships have not yet been structurally modified or because there are no
plans to do so (in the case of submarines and other small vessels).
Far more slots are unavailable for the former reason.
SUMMARY
These data indicate that women are not represented in newly opened
occupations at levels comparable to their overall representation in
their respective services. This may be reasonable, given the limited
time that has elapsed. However, the various occupations indicate
different levels of integration. Career-length patterns and other
occupation-specific information are necessary to calculate expected
levels of representation more precisely, and we will address this further in the next chapter for selected occupations. Absent more
detailed information for each of the occupations addressed quantitatively in this chapter, this information is best used as a benchmark
for further analysis.
It is also worthy of note that some newly opened occupations are
similar to (i.e., included in the same occupational class as) occupations previously open to women, and some of the previously opened
occupations also have low levels of representation. Thus, it is not
clear to what extent gender representation reflects personal choice or
systemic hindrances to women interested in less-traditional career
areas. On the other hand, our snapshot of the representation of
junior and senior women in the services suggests that junior women
may be entering previously opened occupations that have traditionally underrepresented women. We cannot say whether this
means that more younger women are entering these occupations,
46
The Status of Gender Integration in the Military
indicates differential attrition rates by sex, or simply reflects the
greater representation of women in the services in general over time,
but we will attempt to address some of these possible explanations in
the next chapter.