This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
Who would have thought, at the beginning of the 1970s, that this last quarter of the 20th century would see women officers stepping up the gangway to report for duty on hoard a Navy ship? The Navy has made great strides as major opportunities have been opened up for women. But this is not the time to pause.
There are other steps that both men and women must take if there is to be full equality.
School continues to be the major commissi' source for women, the NROTC now commissions
tween 60 and 70 women line officers each Year' first Naval Academy class with women enrolls graduate in 1980- Annually, 40 to 50 women w‘ commissioned from this source. j
It would seem that, because of the training education that these young women are getting’ ^ would behoove the Navy to take full advantage their talents and give them complete opportunity^ excel. Yet, while “opportunities” seem to be m
creaS"
dary
of sh^
billets. These factors are manifested by women sistently relieving women and jobs continuing c° the same: administration/personnel, education training, commynications/naval facilities, and a
con-
addition, equal opportunity/human resource agement. While there are important jobs in areas, they generally are not filled with URL
in
fficef5’
creasingly high quality of junior women URL
iof
af£
A
J. JLs the 1970s draw to a close, the Navy’s women line officers can look back on the decade as one in which we have made considerable professional progress. But the sense of satisfaction which comes from recognizing this progress is nevertheless diminished by the certain knowledge that we still have far to go in order to achieve full equality with our male counterparts.
In 1972, I described the woman line officer as follows:
“She represents the combination of woman, professional, and restricted unrestricted line officer. These role ambiguities complicate her professional life as she finds herself dealing with subtleties and biases, similar to those surrounding the woman professional generally.” 1
To give some perspective of where we were then and where we are now, let’s examine some specific factors:
Lessening of Limitations to Job Opportunities and Assignments: Comparing the job options available to women officers at the beginning and end of the decade, a vast improvement is evident. For several years, a career development pattern for women unrestricted line officers (URLs) has been in effect, with dual tracks which provide for both management/ leadership development and subspecialty development during an officer’s career. The management/ leadership track now leads to the clear objective of command, and women officers are in command today throughout the Navy, especially in the Recruiting Command. Management subspecialties continue to be predominant, with comparatively few women in the engineering and other technical subspecialties. A move toward assignment of women to “nontraditional billets” is currently under way, particularly with relatively recent accession of women from more technically oriented college curricula. In the past, a vast majority of URL women were educated in the liberal arts.
Reviewing the current decade, major opportunities which have opened up for women are the restricted line and the warfare specialties. The numbers of women in the restricted line have steadily increased since it was opened to women in May 1976. The woman officer aviator follows a relatively new career path, and with passage of the amendment to Title 10 U. S. Code 6015, female aviators may for the first time perfqrm noncombatant flight duties involving the landing of aircraft aboard ships at sea.2 A few women will serve as special operations officers, as- ‘For footnotes, please turn to page 49 signed to certain salvage and rescue vessels. An ^
course, the amendment opens up a surface 'va
career path for women officers, from Surface W
Officer School to command at sea. ^
Another real breakthrough in the decade was ^
opening of two additional officer accession progr
the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps te
and the Naval Academy. While Officer Can 1
1 ■ 'oning
be-
The
ailed wjl1
ing for women, we continue to receive secon^\\is consideration in the area of job assignment- ^ situation is the result of the billet structure sys and the mechanics of the detailing process. The tern is tailor-made for “legitimate” discrimma against women to be practiced since the best t> in most instances are not coded 1000. (Billets ^ 1000 codes require URL expertise but no warfafe cialty.) Secondly, detailers are committed to ta ^ care of front-runners in warfare specialties, beca that’s a prime ingredient of readiness. And, th‘r ^ there is a prevailing belief that women are 10 Navy to take up the slack in the shore establish111 and they are detailed accordingly to code 1000 lets, which traditionally are leftovers after the war specialties have designated their fair share
an"
0eW
ma(r
these
men
since warfare specialists need good jobs ashore. ^ occasionally is the cycle broken when a conscient* detailer goes to bat for a woman with a superS record.
This job assignment reality, coupled with an
is causing tremendous frustration among )un women. I suspect that the higher quality ones < beginning to resign. A similar situation prevail^ the mid-level/senior officer grades, with the ta ^ leaving in large numbers at the 20- to 22-year ma In other words, many of our best women retire ea
crit,
seni
er'a. As a result, selection opportunities in the l°r ranks are becoming so good that the sense of 'evement and challenge tend to be lessened to a at degree. This is a recent phenomenon which we Ust face and resolve.
Co;
isn t^le other hand, the retention rate for URL women I Sl8mficantly better than for URL men, and for the Qpt foot years has been consistently higher than any che URL warfare designator groups. One could tal C Uc^e that, while women—especially the most l. nted-—are not being fully utilized by the Navy, a percentage of women are not sufficiently dis- j ««ed to leave before the 20-year mark. Civilian °Pportunities are not yet sufficiently attractive r military women to resign in large numbers.
^ ^ s*de effect to talent leaving early, and thus pro- Clng a smaller promotion base, is reverse dis- ^oiination, which is beginning to creep into the
avy in regard to selection of URL women. Women ate l ■ ° ,
se| DeinS selected, as they compete among themes’ whose records would not be competitive with e,r male counterparts, given reasonable selection
achi
''nservative Leadership: Most of us senior women m our 40s, and few could be categorized as ar-
dent feminists. Generally, we appear to be as traditional and conservative as our male contemporaries. I personally am bothered by the failure of some senior women to adopt a feminist posture; their actions seem not to have caught up with their thinking. I do understand, however, how we were socialized, and senior women are gradually becoming attuned to what must be done to stop institutional sexism within the Navy. Within our own sociological and psychological limits, we are working to bring about equal opportunity for women in the Navy. On the other hand, there are some leadership changes coming about, particularly when one considers the lieutenant commanders who soon will become commanders. These women, who were graduated from college in the late 1960s, are more assertive in the arena of feminism than some of their juniors or seniors, perhaps because of their own socialization during their college years. For example, a 1978 survey of 102 women officers demonstrated that, of the five ranks studied (ensign through commander), ensigns were least in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment (63% endorsement) while lieutenant commanders were most in favor (88%).3 Institutional Sexism: Institutional sexism is prejudice or discrimination against one of the sexes within an institution, discrimination being the act, practice, or instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually. My first disturbing encounter with institutional sexism occurred in 1965. I was due for orders after a year of graduate education at American University in international relations. My first choice of duty was OpNav, and there was an opening in OP-61 which I requested. My class standing was number one of 37 line officers, and I naively thought I had a chance for an OpNav billet. My “situation” was considered by the Chief of Naval Operations, and I was informed that he ruled me out because, “I do not want any female action officers impeding my vocabulary.” My second choice was a teaching billet at the U. S. Naval Academy. I was turned down as being “too attractive . . . grow a few more gray hairs so you won’t be as apt to turn on the middies.” I was detailed to a less-than-best billet in Naval Investigative Service Office (NISO) headquarters while male classmates of mine filled the OpNav and Naval Academy billets. Today, we have women serving as both Academy instructors and OpNav/jCS action officers. But the kind of discrimination I experienced continues today, though to a somewhat lesser degree. Analysis of a recent survey administered by psychologist Patricia Thomas, of the Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, to women officers | clearly reflects that women in 1978 felt very the effects of institutional sexism.4 The survey administered to 102 women line officers (8% 0 women line officers in the Navy). A feeling of rej^ tion as full professionals is apparent in the res ^ Fully 75% of the officers reported that they ha one time or another been expected to do cer feminine jobs that were not a part of their du Almost one-third felt they had received ^aV(^rare. treatment because of their sex. Nearly two-thir ported having experienced resentment from rnen taking up shore billets. (Yet the Navy has e5t^ lished policies which clearly preclude women interfering with sea/shore rotation.) ^ A comparison of questionnaire responses °f_c0 temporary women officers with those of officers *n^ earlier study reflects that women, more so today r seven years ago, perceive themselves as subj^- status ambiguity and to institutional sexism- ^ suits also reveal a greater polarity, in that very the women in the current sample lacked an op*n ^ as compared with those in the 1972 study. F°r ample, a majority opinion of the early 1970s ^ female officers should have the same opportum and responsibilities as male officers is now al unanimous. „ fv There is growing pessimism among women ^ spondents about acceptance by men. Three-fourth5 them, compared with two-thirds in 1972, be that they are held back in their professional opment “. . . because of ingrained beliefs hel * ^ men that women are not capable as managers, while 47% in 1972 felt that “. . . women offic j experience considerable difficulty in their profess*011^ development because the men with whom they -s feel the need to be superior,” 63% agreed with c statement in 1978. ~ It appears that, as the opportunity gap bet" the sexes narrows, women officers are feeling c°n^ejr erable resistance from male officers. To protect 1 ^ position and opportunities, and despite their 0 expressed dislike for a separate quasi-corps, a° creasing percentage of respondents felt that atten at the Chief of Naval Operations level will be ^ quired during any integration period to prevent ual discrimination (72% in 1972; 87% in ^ js One positive note from the more recent survey ^ that, notwithstanding their pessimistic fee11 . about sexism within the Navy, 86% reported c they would join if they had it to do again. Hence^ less-than-ideal environment is accepted in favor Naval career for other, stronger reasons. ^ Women are saying that the Navy discrimin*1 against them as a category of people. This occurs |
A A | ____ ii__ / TnlV |
a negative tone within a command.
► One woman officer recalled, “At my last duty station, I encountered numerous prejudices including having to prove myself, not only as a new ensign, but as a person, on the job; being kept on the watch for 21 months, the average being 12-15 months for my male counterparts, and after getting off the watch, being placed in a nonexistent billet until my rotation. I feel these situations occur mainly because of my sex and not my competence, since I continued to receive straight 1% fitness reports.” 6
► For at least ten years, women have had only one really functional uniform to wear, the service dress blue, while men have had several. After three years of study, the CNO in 1977 approved a package of new uniforms for women which would include several functional uniforms. It is now taking upward of four-five years (1974-1979) to produce new uniforms. Yet it took minimal time to implement the decision to revert to bell-bottoms. Women do not have the numbers or influence to move the system. This is not a trivial matter. Many hours are spent wearing our uniforms.
► As recently as 1977, I experienced institutional sexism in discussions regarding my next assignment. The problem for me or other similarly situated women is that the only results of presenting a Navy Regulations Article 1105 or 1106 complaint are unnecessary embarrassment, delay, and often further solidification of the bias already suffered. Sex discrimination complaints involving women officers will more than likely continue to result in sympathy, and little else, until a flag officer answering only to the CNO or Secretary of the Navy is chartered to take direct action. Such a charter, to be meaningful and effective, would necessarily include the power to overrule sex bias in field and Naval Military Personnel Command (ex-BuPers) decisions, even when authority lines must be crossed.
Discrimination by Law: Another major example of institutional sexism deserves separate discussion— discriminatory laws. Recent actions and reactions to
lrndaily basis. A few examples should trigger an ^ of institutional sexism for the reader: a0r senior officers to address women in general, sornetimes women officers specifically, as sex°aCk’” “fillies,” “dollies,” or “girls” is blatant k Srr*> officially condemned yet generally condoned t^le Navy. I realize that interpretations of these
th 018 Var^ w‘r^ r^e sex an<^ aSe r^e source> but ey add up to a general putdown of women and set
Aviation—a traditionally male monopoly in the armed services—is becoming an opportunity for females as well, with women being allowed to perform noncombat flights involving ships at sea. Now that this field is open to them, more and more women, like the pilots of this CH-46D Sea Knight helicopter and this C-130F Hercules cargo transport plane, will choose to earn their wings.
the assignment of women to ships provides such a case study. Perhaps women should have cheered because at last they would be permitted to serve at sea. On the other hand, U. S. District Judge John J. Sirica declared Section 6015 (of Title 10 U. S. Code) to be unconstitutional in July 1978 “Because section 6015 operates to bar an entire sex from a wide, though by no means unlimited, range of career and service opportunities for which the highest military authorities have determined them to be qualified, the sweep of the statute is too broad to pass [Constitutional] muster.” To have equality by law is the first step toward reducing institutional sexism. If the Navy were truly serious about changing women’s roles, it would recommend repeal of Section 6015 immediately. Instead, a few more courageous women probably will have to challenge the constitutionality of the newly modified 6015 in the courts before action is taken. To really practice equal opportunity, the Navy should rethink its position on women at sea, request repeal of 6015, and continue with its measured approach toward sending women to sea. This would not mean, necessarily, a change in Navy policies. Judge Sirica gave the Navy considerable discretion in managing and distributing its women. Support of a modified 6015 perpetuates status ambiguity for a growing segment of the Navy and nourishes the underlying roots of sexism. The amended 6015 in effect precludes unrestricted line women from pursuing careers as submarine warfare, special warfare, or naval flight officers. Those women serving as pilots, surface warfare, special operations, or non-warfare officers are also more constrained in their assignments, ashore or afloat, than their male URL counterparts. In 1972, the Secretary of the Navy convened a task force to change the laws that discriminate against women. And, as a member of this task force, I became painfully aware of the inequities for women within the law. Many of our recommendations were incorporated in a CNO legislative package which has been held in abeyance pending the fate of the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA). The Navy has taken the position that DOPMA, passage of which would make legislation sex-neutral regarding promotion, separations, etc., is the legislative answer for removing legal inequities for women. In the meantime, as DOPMA has had its troubles, legal variances within Title 10 of the U. S. Code continue. Major inequitable policies which stem from legal differences include: ► Women are precluded from becoming limited duty officers. ► Officers detailed to command or succeeding to | command of naval districts, naval bases, or s *P must be “eligible for command at sea.” This ex women URL officers as well as several other o communities. _ ^ ► Greater service-in-grade requirements exist ^ women officers than for males; thus, for example, male commander contemporaries became ehglD promotion several years before I did. ^ ► Women officers may be appointed (rather promoted) to billet grade of rear admiral. Such * pointment terminates on the date of detach These and many other legal constraints play a s*$^e cant role in categorizing women officers as sep and unequal. Status Ambiguity: Status ambiguity is a sociology term involving the questioning of one’s ide ^ What is the woman officer’s status in an organ*2* whose critical environment consists of ships an craft when she is not permitted to participate t0 ‘ ^ degree in the most fundamental way by serving ^ board them? Women officers are not a badly nee human resource, as are enlisted women, beca there exists no parallel shortage of male officers the fields to which females are restricted. Their . inal function and raisons d’etre of managing en 1 ^ women and providing the military with a traine cleus in the event of mobilization have all but appeared. Some other factors related to status ambigulty ” j” vail: there is, for example, the “different but equ syndrome. Women are still very much separate^e terms of overall personnel management policies- j have a different career development program and continue to as long as most of us (approxima 80-85% URL women) will not be warfare speciab^ Another factor that is fortunately not so rele^ ^ today as in the early 1970’s is that of lack of de * tive guidelines for career progression toward a P dictable objective. Moving to other status *ac however, there is still the problem of uncertainty to qualification for specific billets, and the pat to the top is somewhat unclear, particularly detailers are not as knowledgeable as they shorn ^ regarding assignment of women officers. Deta^t often are unaware, or unwilling to recognize, ■ women desire and are serious about careers as ° officers. A final component is role ambiguity—who an* Role concerns the matter of being a woman * ^ man’s organization. For the line officer who hapP also to be a woman, this ambiguity is evidence ^ many facets of her daily routine. The effect of try to exhibit dual behavior, both womanly and on* |
| _ .. , T..1V IS*8 |
1 e (which may not be different in nature but is so 0licept;ualized by many), is that a high degree of to ltU<^’na^ flexibility is required for a woman officer Maintain stability. It is extremely important that e officer be secure in her understanding of herself as a female.
‘urn the
pr°vided
Status ambiguity, by the way, also is in effect perspective of Navy managers. They are with human resources who by federal law Precluded in general from association with the fr'aterial elements that make their organization func- ^°n. They are faced with a liability: the restricted unacted line officer. How are they supposed to be °s>tively inclined toward a liability? I hope the Modification to Section 6015 will lessen the liability; repeal will certainly erase it.
^ Management underpinning-. The central backdrop to ^JScUssion of equal opportunity for women in the avy is the Navy’s people program effort that began ^nder Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr. in 1971 and ecarne what is now called the Human Resource
Management Support System (HRMSS). The concern today is that we are not necessarily at a plateau with the HRMSS; rather we are hanging over the cliff. While this effort could be saved, it also can fall to its demise. To state the matter succinctly, people issues are given lip service, but whether effective programs are actually being implemented is highly questionable. A part of the program is the issue of women in the Navy and, now, of women going to sea. The major outcomes of not effectively educating personnel regarding women in the Navy are that (1) the environment in which women work today is fraught
cer
policy. Because of seniority, or lack of experien^ she is denied opportunity to serve on board ship- that is where the best should be assigned and w ^ she wants to be. A policy decision which might meet both the Navy’s needs and those of the nU^ level officers would be assignment of these lieute commanders to lesser rank billets, such as div* _ officer positions, and then fleeting them up tap1
wat' who as
desire sea duty, may see themselves more than ^ ^ on the second team. The cream within the
£-
structure, just doesn’t make it to the top.
with institutional sexism and (2) status ambiguity is perpetuated at a very high level.
A setback to Navy women, relative to seven years ago, is the administration of integrating women into the Navy. The wise decision to disestablish the billet of director of the Waves was made in 1973, but the timing was wrong. Just when we were increasing the numbers of women and opening up programs to them, the central management office was abolished, resulting in fragmented administration and management. Interestingly, recently an office was established in OpNav to coordinate developments concerning women. The Navy is in a peculiar situation here. On the one hand, a quasi-separate organization or community is not what women, or men, want. Yet there is a need to manage the total integration of women into the Navy, including at sea, as effectively and efficiently as possible. To do this requires overall coordination, more so than has been done in recent years, and the enforcement of policies by top management to reduce the institutional sexism which Navy women are currently experiencing.
Women in Ships: I need not rehash the issues and problems inherent in assigning women to ships. But, in the context of the changing role of women line officers, I fully support Captain James Kelly’s general attitude on the subject discussed in the October 1978 Proceedings.7 Let’s stop predicting doom and gloom for those ships which will have mixed crews and begin to solve the problems of the men and women faced with implementing the women in ships project.
As Captain Kelly predicts, women will be satisfied only when full equal opportunity is available. Based on the above-mentioned questionnaire results, women officers are overwhelmingly (95%) in favor of equality of opportunity for themselves and Navy men. Relatedly, a vast majority believe that the Navy should consider a pilot program in which women serve on board large combatants. Five years ago, only two-thirds of them supported this concept. A momentum is rolling within the women officer community toward complete equal opportunity. Were sea duty involuntary, less than one-fifth of the junior officer respondents, and only 11% of the mid-level officers reported they would resign.
For the Navy to support equal opportunity for sea duty only halfway, that is, a modified Section 6015, perpetuates inequities in career opportunities and assignments for both men and women. For example, limiting women to noncombatant ships permits only 15-20% of the URL women to serve in a warfare specialty. Denying women URL officers full sea duty at
the same time allows them a “dry” career an °P portunity not provided to male URLs. ^e_
One of the negative outcomes may be that, cause the designated ships in which women will ser^ seldom leave port for extended periods, Navy will see their access to desirable duty—at least ^ some—lessened by assignment of women. Such ^ equity can quickly lead to prejudice. Thus, halfway measure along the road to equal opportunity while positive and heretical in some sense, by lts ^ ture will continue to foster, and may exacerbate, stitutional sexism. That is not to deny the argum ^ that we must determine the impact of women at on mission readiness. of
Another is potential loss, either psychologically actually, of the more talented mid-level woman o^ who sees herself caught between the old and ne to the next management positions.
With only 15-20% of women URL officers in fare specialties, the majority, especially those women will very likely be those in the warfare SP cialties, either by choice or by peer pressure. “ achievers take the best road to success. The career, without realignment of our officer t>
On the plus side of women serving in noncomt^ ants, there is little doubt that women and men wo
• ‘ a q L'
ing together at sea will produce more positive ^ titudes on the part of skeptical Navy men- Naval Academy experience is a good example. w the women were first admitted, the upper class ^ were solidly against the intrusion into their PreV ously exclusive society. This fall, for the first t‘r^, there will be women in all four classes, and to ^ knowledge at least, the men’s attitude toward ^ women is favorable, in part because the ones operated in the all-male Academy environment n now been graduated.
. the
Solutions: What are the possible solutions to ^ issues that have been addressed? An obvious one continued commitment at the top of the organizat to bringing about effective changes in behaviors an attitudes regarding the use of women. The N*
greater equality. These steps seem to be far attainable, unfortunately, than the organiza- ones. First, women can acquire skills that help ria]C<)Ping with discriminatory comments and pater- th 'StlC behaviors which violate Navy policy. Rather fu,an keep frustrations within themselves when stress- Sltuations occur, be they sexist or otherwise, ho11160 Can ^eam t0 confront people and organiza- nal policies in a professional, assertive manner. tl/0’ Worilen must define clearly for themselves who
Also, hey
n\^S t0 committed to an evolutionary manage- and P°licy’ gradually increasing job opportunities everC^an^es ^or women. A serious problem, how- j0r’ ^'es in lack of commitment to changing behav- and attitudes within the organization that would th ' ^ the quality of life for its women, increasing the^ e^ect*veness ‘n the organization. As long as and VS SUi3f>ort ^or anc^ aPProvai of sexist comments stehaviors and there is considerable ambiguity of jjpp S’ the working atmosphere for women will be a j ICult one. A concerted, professional organizational °Pment thrust, educating men and women atljUt Sexism, demanding that both organizational mdividual sexist practices be confronted and Pped, would alleviate the problem. This could be fished through a revitalized HRMSS. An effec- Ptogram of awareness concerning women in the s-y ^ essential, and is the sine qua non, for the - °f women at sea. The reality is that sexism rej be a far more difficult prejudice to confront and ess than racism was for the Navy.
Ujj tber Navy actions that would both reflect com- gair|Tlent to equal opportunity for its women and mi"1, foller utilization of its resources include: sub- eSl°n °f a legislative package which provides for gQj lfy in the laws, including repeal of Section Stro ’ revision of our billet structure to support a viable career path for the URL women with the 1100; and closer monitoring of the career ^ression of women officers, ty 0rr>en, as individuals, can take specific steps to-
rd ~ iT-i________
^ore
tionai
Sta^ are. They must ask themselves: What is my jo Us *n the Navy? Is it what I want? How would I ® it to be different?
Str not^er g°ai for women is to become a source of in tn^t^ f°r eacf* other, more so than they have been Clerecent years. There exist at least two natural veins'5 Co achieve this goal. One, in its developmental es ‘n several Navy communities, is the woman Co*Cer Wori<ing luncheon. These luncheons could be- 0e forums for the exchange of experiences and ’°ns. A second vehicle being discussed by tiQ11160 °®cers but yet to materialize is the forman °f a national, Navy-wide professional association. Such an organization would have to be conceived carefully so that it would function as a professional organization. The key would be to formulate and plan for this association with specific outcomes in mind. Women officers are not of a single mind on this topic, but it is being discussed with increased frequency.
Women officers themselves can play an important part in bringing about positive changes in their working environment and in effecting their own better utilization. Each woman has the ability to make improvements in matching improved job opportunities with a minimum of sexism. And, by the mid- 1980s, I hope we can look back to the shadow of institutional sexism with as much satisfaction as we have in 1979 in looking at the far greater job opportunities for current Navy women than those which existed in the early 1970s.
Commander Coye received a B.A. in political science from Wellesley College in 1959- After graduation from Officer Candidate School in June I960, she served in personnel and recruiting billets. She then attended American University, receiving an M.A. in international relations. Subsequent tours included serving on the staff of SACLant and being at the Naval War College as both student and faculty member. In 1974-1977, Commander Coye served at the Human Resource Management Center as an HRM Team Leader. Since August 1977, she has been with the Personnel/Pay Administrative Support System (PASS) Project in San Diego, and is now commanding officer, Personnel Support Activity, Naval Training Center, San Diego. She is a proven subspecialist in manpower-personnel.
‘Beth F. Coye, "The Restricted Unrestricted Line Officer: The Status of the Navy’s Woman Line Officer,” Naval War College Review, March 1972, p. 57.
2With enactment of the fiscal year 1979 Defense Authorization Bill amending Section 6015 of Title 10 U. S. Code, the Navy commenced assignment of female officer and enlisted personnel to shipboard duty. This legislation will permit Navy women to serve as members of ship’s company on board hospital ships, transports, and certain other auxiliaries which do not normally perform combat missions. Woman officer and enlisted personnel will also be eligible for temporary additional duty assignment to any ship for which a combat mission is not envisioned during the TAD period.
3P. J. Thomas, "The Female Naval Officer: What is her Role?” Paper presented at 86th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 29 August 1978. A complete statistical report of the survey may be obtained from Ms. Thomas, Navy Personnel and Research Development Center, San Diego.
4Ibid.
*Beth F. Coye, Sara P. F. Denby, C. Cort Hooper, and Kathleen A. Mullen, "Is There Room for Women in Navy Management: An Attitud- inal Survey,” Naval War College Review, January-February 1973, pp- 69-87.
6This quotation is from one of the respondents in the Thomas survey. Many women took time to expand their numerical answers in a narrative. 7James F. Kelly, "Women in Warships: A Right to Serve,” United States Naval Institute Proceedings, October 1978, pp. 44-52.