The Matrix of Domination: The Structuralized Oppression of Black Women in the US Army and its Affect on Leadership Development

Introduction

Before considering military service, people should be ready to handle the projection of others’ insecurities and biases onto them from privileged positions within a hierarchical structure. These circumstances may leave them trapped in an organization that they cannot abandon without repercussions. With less than 10 percent of the population serving or having served in the armed forces, it is vital to lay the foundation of the organizational culture to better understand discriminatory structured oppression within the military lifestyle. While serving, the silence from reporting wrongdoing was so pervasive that there was a shared belief that speaking up was impertinent unless an undeniable action could not be ignored. Through the author’s 18 years of active-duty experience in the Army, she finds it taboo to discredit the Army, its culture, and its leaders because of everything she has gained from it. However, she reminds herself that this is not an act of contempt and intends to speak truth to power. As a retired combat veteran and Doctor of Organizational Leadership, she wishes to expand upon leadership experiences and military service by exploring the military culture in America to understand the paradox of discipline and professionalism used as tools of oppression and its effect on Black women leaders in the military.

There is an emphasis on those who volunteer to serve their country by viewing them from a favored position of unquestionable respect and admiration because they selflessly take an oath to defend America. Nevertheless, there continues to be a flagrant show of hatred and hostile prejudicial attitudes towards Black service members, specifically Black women. Army leadership becomes more challenging for some Black women because the uniform once represented a nation that has historically enslaved and oppressed Black people and disregarded women as second-class citizens, making it difficult to be seen and valued in a military organization built on anti-blackness, misogyny, hegemonic masculinity as the military masculinity complex, heteropatriarchy, and structural whiteness. These variables have created exclusive boundaries around what it means to be a member of the armed forces by disregarding Black women and other minoritized groups.

Nonetheless, Black women have always been active participants in America’s warfighting in official and unofficial capacities. In 1942 Black women were officially allowed to serve in the Women’s Army Corps (WAC) within limited roles. In 1948, the Army integrated, allowing Black people to serve in integrated units. Then in 1973, when the military draft ended, women began serving in more significant roles than previously allowed. These changes allowed Black women to occupy more space which historically excluded them. Today, with more and more Black women seeking military service as an alternative form of employment, Black women are still met with resistance to their presence, paralleled with stereotypes and the diminishment of their leadership abilities and authority within the hierarchical military structure.

Historically, the most publicly recognized Army leaders are white men. Their stories tell us how these white men and their leadership abilities have protected and led America to freedom. This version of history leaves much to the imagination and the assumption that white men are generally more effective leaders than those who do not fit this racial and gender standard. However, the Army has a concept of making a soldier gender neutral. Conversely, this can only be done by ignoring the female sex, femininity, and womanhood. Therefore, in this context, what represents a soldier remains rooted in the male sex, men, and masculinity. However, this representation is so fragile that for some, whenever gender, female sex, femininity, or womanhood is considered, there is a hegemonic, heteropatriarchal, misogynistic reaction accompanied by verbiage that implies the deterioration of the word soldier. The same is said when race is considered, specifically Blackness; the response and verbiage are anti-black. White men have been the soldier prototype for so long that any connection to Blackness, femininity, and womanhood, for some, is insulting. The lack of Black woman representation in leadership positions within the military solidifies this argument and illustrates the value of white male leadership. In contrast, others’ leadership abilities are a commodity of equal opportunity, diversity, and inclusion to fill spaces that maintain the fighting force. Alternatively, as Boyd (2022) states, “[Diversity and inclusion] is just the white man’s burden repackaged and transformed into new ideologies that preserve heteropatriarchy, white supremacy, and the romanticized conception of the well-intentioned.”