. "6 Army Work and Approaches to Occupational Analysis." The Changing Nature of Work: Implications for Occupational Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1999.
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
are underrepresented only in tactical operations and as general officers—and by a very wide margin.
The reasons for such disparities between the participation of men and women in Army occupational areas can be attributed to legal and policy restrictions on women in combat, tradition, and personal choice. On the matter of personal choice, previous research suggests that women who join the military tend to prefer jobs that are traditionally associated with women (Binkin and Eitelberg, 1986). One factor to keep in mind here is that women, although underrepresented in many areas (based on overall levels of participation) are not unrepresented. As Table 6.4 indicates,
TABLE 6.4
Number and Percentage of Military Occupations with 10 or More Personnel That Have No Women, by Service and Officer/Enlisted Status, 1996
Service
Officer
Enlisted
Total
Army
All occupations
188
250
438
No women
19
35
54
Percent
10.2
14.0
12.4
Navy
All occupations
526
999
1,525
No women
104
263
367
Percent
19.8
26.4
24.1
Marine Corps
All occupations
123
316
439
No women
49
64
113
Percent
39.9
20.3
25.8
Air Force
All occupations
257
243
500
No women
29
17
46
Percent
11.3
7.0
9.2
Total
All occupations
1,094
1,808
2,902
No women
201
379
580
Percent
18.4
21.0
20.0
SOURCE: Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, Utilization of Women Indicator Report (Monterey, CA: Defense Manpower Data Center/Naval Postgraduate School, 30 September 1996), p. 53.