Search

Introduction This article uses recent survey data from a study on gender integration at recruit training across the U.S. Armed Forces to examine service, gender, and training differences in recruit's gender attitudes, beliefs, and cohesion metrics. In addition to providing a descriptive understanding of our recruit sample, this article examines factors germane to gender integration at recruit training such as gender attitudes, sexist beliefs, and unit cohesion. Materials and Methods This article uses data from a survey of U.S. Marine Corps (USMC), U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Coast Guard recruits as part of a USMC-commissioned study to develop alternate models and recommendations for increasing gender integration in USMC recruit training. At all sites but the USMC, recruits completed the survey 1 to 2 weeks before graduation. At the Marine Corps Recruit Depots, recruits participated in the survey at the beginning (week 2) and end (week 11) of their 13-week training cycle. A 19-question survey captured sociodemographic information, perspectives and experiences during recruit training, and gender attitudes and beliefs. Analyses were conducted on the sample with complete data on the measures reported, including those USMC recruits observed at both week 2 and week 11 (n  = 629). Descriptive statistics (percentage) were calculated for all categorical outcome variables. Outcome variables (cohesion, gender, and sexism attitudes) were compared between groups using chi-squared tests or Fisher's exact tests, as appropriate. Results Recruits differed significantly across services in perceptions of unit cohesion on 3 of the 4 indicators: Platoon members are cooperative, know they can depend on each other, and really respect each other (P <  .05). These differences appear to be driven by female recruit difference across service. They reported significant differences in gender role attitudes across the services, with USMC recruits being most likely to endorse traditional gender roles compared to other service recruits. Male USMC recruits were significantly more likely than their female peers to agree that men should achieve outside the home and women should take care of the home and family (21.3% versus 6.3%, P <  .05). The only statistical differences in attitudes about equality of treatment and opportunity among recruits were between male and female USMC recruits. All items capturing sexist attitudes elicited statistically significant differences between male USMC recruits and male recruits in other services (P <  .05). There were significant differences in all sexism measures between male and female USMC recruits (P <  .05). There is a significant decline in some sexist attitudes between weeks 2 and 11 of training among male USMC recruits (P <  .05). Nearly one-half to three-fourths of male USMC recruits hold sexist attitudes, even near the end of recruit training. Conclusions The disparate gender and sexism attitudes of male USMC recruits compared with their peers in other services, and their fellow female USMC recruits suggest efforts to increase gender integration at entry-level training are needed, but also may be challenging since male USMC recruits report the highest levels of sexist attitudes among all recruits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Recruit training is the initial entry for enlisted personnel in the military. The Services execute gender-integrated recruit training differently. The U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) maintains same-gender platoons led by same-gender drill instructors in integrated companies; further integration occurs at select training events. The other Services train recruits in gender-integrated units with mixed-gender drill instructor teams. We examine recruits' experiences and perceptions of gender integration at recruit training, their desired level of integration, and preferences for increasing gender integration, comparing by Service and gender. Materials and Methods Recruit perspectives and experiences were captured in a 19-question survey (n = 632) and 90-min focus groups (n  = 260) near graduation from recruit training. Data were collected from June to November 2021. Because of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic restrictions, the Navy and Air Force were not conducting gender-integrated recruit training during data collection. Outcome variables were compared cross-Service by gender and within Service by gender using chi-squared tests or Fisher's exact tests, as appropriate; focus group data were analyzed using initial and secondary coding schemes. Three USMC training models, varied by level of integration, were also analyzed (Male-Only, Series Track, and Integrated Company). Results Significant gender differences across and within Service emerged in recruits' experience being trained by an opposite-gender instructor. Male recruits had significant differences by Service (P  < .001), and USMC female recruits reported being trained by male instructors more than their male peers by female instructors (Series Track P  = .002; Integrated Company P  < .001). In the focus groups, recruits described common differences with how men and women embodied being a drill instructor. Significant gender differences across (both male and female P  < .001) and within Service were reported for closeness of training with opposite-gender peers (Air Force P  = .028; U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Integrated Company P  = .010; Army P  = .048), an expected finding given varied integration during data collection. Male and female recruits had significant differences by Service in their preference for integration at the lowest unit level (both male and female P  < .001), with those who experienced integrated training showing higher levels of endorsement. In the focus groups, recruits articulated benefits and challenges of gender-integrated recruit training. Significant gender differences across Service emerged in preferences for more integration in specific training activities. Within Service, female USMC Integrated Company recruits wanted more integration in tactical/field, physical fitness, and classroom training than their male peers (P  < .001 for all). In the focus groups, USMC recruits of both genders desired more integrated training events, particularly those involving combat and tactical skill development. Conclusions This study provided an opportunity to examine recruit perspectives on gender-integrated training. Services valuing opposite-gender instructor exposure in recruit training must ensure that male recruits are being taught and led by female instructors given disproportionate demographics. Recruits who experienced integrated training were more supportive of integration, indicating that this experience may increase their support for gender-integrated training units and environments. Today's recruits understand that they are entering gender-integrated working environments, and our results indicate that they expect recruit training to mirror that reality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ryan Kelty, Meredith Kleykamp, and David Segal examine the effect of military service on the transition to adulthood. They highlight changes since World War II in the role of the military in the lives of young adults, focusing especially on how the move from a conscription to an all-volunteer military has changed the way military service affects youths' approach to adult responsibilities. The authors note that today's all-volunteer military is both career-oriented and family-oriented, and they show how the material and social support the military provides to young servicemen and women promotes responsible membership in family relationships and the wider community. As a result, they argue, the transition to adulthood, including economic independence from parents, is more stable and orderly for military personnel than for their civilian peers. At the same time, they stress that serving in the military in a time of war holds dangers for young adults. The authors examine four broad areas of military service, focusing in each on how men and women in uniform today make the transition to adulthood. They begin by looking at the social characteristics of those who serve, especially at differences in access to the military and its benefits by socio-demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, race and ethnicity, social class, and sexual orientation. Military service also has important effects on family formation, including the timing of marriage and parenthood, family structure, and the influence of military culture on families. Family formation among servicemen and women, the authors observe, is earlier and more stable than among civilians of the same age. The authors then consider the educational and employment consequences of service. Finally, they scrutinize the dangers of military service during times of war and examine the physical and psychological effects of wartime military service. They also note the sexual trauma endured both by male and female military personnel and the physical and symbolic violence women can experience in a male-dominated institution. Kelty, Kleykamp, and Segal conclude by seeking policy lessons from the military's success in facilitating the transition to adulthood for young men and women in uniform. (Contains 1 figure, 1 table, and 123 endnotes.)

This paper studies the effects of wages and employment on men's prison admission rates in the United States from 1983 to 2001. Research on the effects of the labor market on incarceration usually examines national-or state-level data, but our analysis studies prison admission among black and white men in specific age-education groups. We find a significant increase in educational inequality in incarceration; nearly all the growth in the risk of imprisonment was confined to non-college men. Regression analysis of prison admission rates shows the negative effects of wages and employment on black men's incarceration, and the negative effects of wages on white men's imprisonment. If 1980s' wage and employment levels had persisted through the late 1990s, the estimates suggest that prison admission rates would be 15 to 25 percent lower for all non-college men.

This article examines the effect of prior military service on hiring for entry-level jobs in a major metropolitan labor market. The research employs an audit method in which resumes differing only in the presentation of military experience versus civilian work experience are faxed in response to an advertised position. Results suggest that employers exhibit preferential treatment of black military veterans with transferable skills over black nonveterans. Veterans with traditional military experience in the combat arms do not experience preferential treatment by employers, regardless of racial/ethnic background. These findings suggest a possible mechanism generating the postmilitary employment benefit among blacks found in prior observational studies. A veteran premium in hiring may stem from the concentration of blacks in military occupational specialties with a high degree of civilian transferability, combined with employer preferences for military veterans with such work experience over their nonveteran peers. Keywords: military; veterans; Army; hiring; discrimination

Scholars have long examined how generations or, more technically, cohorts produce social change. According to theory, people's lives are shaped by the years in which they were born because they experience, along with their peers, particular historical events at the same points in the life course. Despite the importance of history, however, many scholars have evaluated cohorts not defined by clear start and end dates, but rather by arbitrary cut points, such as five-year intervals. In contrast, this article uses defined changes in military service in the United States stemming from shifts between war and peace, and from draft to volunteer service to assess how cohorts have contributed to change in socioeconomic attainment. It uses the Current Population Survey from 1971 to 2017, which has not previously been used to evaluate how veteran status may have produced shifting outcomes across cohorts. It finds evidence that cohorts had different average income overall and between groups, with veterans earning more money than nonveterans who were eligible to serve during the draft era before the Vietnam War. These gaps are partially explained by racial and educational differences. The findings provide a model for analyses of changes in the relative status of other groups, as well as information about how the role of military service in social mobility changed historically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]