“The Strength behind the Uniform”: Acknowledging the Contributions of Military Families or Co-Opting Women’s Labour?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 2008, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) has called the military family “the strength behind the uniform.” The contributions and sacrifices of military families, and in particular spouses, are now formally recognized as essential to operational effectiveness, such as the ability to deploy troops quickly and easily. This represents a departure from previous eras, which took for granted the “naturalness” of a gendered division of labour in military households in support of organizational goals. Making visible and valuing this work parallels recent efforts by the CAF to improve the wellbeing of its people and advance gender equality in the organization and on operations. This article considers the gendered labour and power implications of formally recognizing the contributions of military families and spouses to the CAF. What does recognizing the military family as “the strength behind the uniform” mean for women and the gendered labour relations in military families? By drawing on analyses of policies, programs, and institutional rhetoric, alongside interviews by military family members, the article argues that in formally recognizing the family’s contribution to operational effectiveness, the CAF is co-opting the labour and loyalty of women spouses in military families. The institutional emphasis on “taking care of its people” obscures the ways in which the service required of military families is gendered and relies on women being constrained by traditional gender norms. These findings have implications for the genuine wellbeing of military families and for assessing feminist progress, or lack thereof, within the CAF institution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".