At the San Diego Society for Military History Conference in 2023, the panelists of “Women in the Twentieth-Century US Army: Ambition, Frustration, Sacrifice” noted that women proved to be both a problem and a solution for military efficiency in the 20th Century. By allowing service regardless of gender, the U.S. military increased its skilled labor pool to support its growing tooth-to-tail ratio but challenged its own long-standing masculine identity. In their haste to utilize female labor efficiently, senior military leaders did not grapple with the discontinuities between their expectations and realities when it came to servicewomen resulting in perpetual and illogical lags. For example, women were originally recruited specifically for their skilled labor, but often placed under the command of military officers who did not understand the necessary skills of their tasks. They were recruited to free up men for combat roles yet required male guards when posted overseas. Women’s dress was highly policed, but often insufficiently supplied and designed. Often efficient planning resulted in inefficient execution when it came to servicewomen with no individual clearly at fault. This dichotomous relationship continues to plague logistical planning, gender acceptance, and public perception of servicewomen to this day.

The Legacy of (IN)Efficiency proposes to trace the roots of gendered inefficiency in women’s military service throughout the 20th century. By following the changing roles, expectations, perceptions, and successes of women’s service in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and the all-volunteer military, this edited volume will provide a basis for understanding how the U.S. military came to clarify its own definition of womanhood, service, and identity that the modern services have inherited. 

Cyclical Themes

  • Recruiting 
  • Training
  • Uniforms 
  • Legitimacy
  • Veteran experience 
  • Sexual harassment/violence 
  • Governing women’s bodies/sexuality
  • Race
  • Public opinion
  • Housing/logistics