Abstract
This article considers the experiences of 12 U.S. Army women combat veterans. These women served in historically significant roles as some of the first women to officially serve in combat in the U.S. military. This article focuses on the role of gender in these women’s experiences in the context of the masculine culture of the military. We explore how they used performance of masculinity and metaphors of family to fit into their combat units. We also deliberate on how sexual harassment was used against these women in ways that communicated that they were not fully accepted. Finally, we consider the tension between empowerment and disempowerment in these women’s narratives of their military service.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have marked a change in U.S. women’s military service. For the first time, women were officially placed, though not always officially recognized, in combat roles. Prior to 2012, women soldiers were banned from being assigned to combat units. However, the need for women to work with combat units in the highly gender-segregated spaces of Afghanistan and Iraq won out. Therefore, women were “attached” to units that they could not be “assigned” to. Female engagement teams were developed and deployed. Beginning in May 2005, and retroactively awarded to soldiers engaged in combat after September 2001, women soldiers were wearing Combat Action Badges. In 2012, the ban on women in combat was partially lifted and in 2013 fully lifted (Roulo, 2013). As of January 2016, all military positions are open to women, allowing more career opportunities for women in today’s active military (Pellerin, 2015).
These dramatic changes have increased the visibility of women in the U.S. Armed Forces and have the potential to shift military culture around gender issues. In this article, we explore how women soldiers negotiate identity within the masculine cultural expectations of the military.
The women combat veterans interviewed demonstrate a complex relationship with the masculine norms of the military. This article begins with an exploration of the masculinized identity of “tomboy” and how the masculinity of brothers-in-arms created a space for “sisters-in-arms” and “mothers-in-arms.” After considering how these women found space in the masculine structure, we then explore how they were reminded of their outsider status through sexual harassment. Finally, we evaluate the interplay between the narratives of empowerment and disempowerment within the culture of masculinity. The army was a place where these women were promised they could be all they could be, but it was also a place where they learned that sometimes all they could be was just a girl in a man’s world.
Gender, Identity, and Performance: Doing Gender in the Military
Gender is well understood in the social sciences as performative rather than biological in nature (Butler, 1990). In particular, gender is something that is performed in interactions with others. In the interactional context, certain behaviors are expected and will be read as masculine or feminine; “a person’s gender is not simply an aspect of what one is, but, more fundamentally, it is something that one does, and does recurrently, in interaction with others” (West & Zimmerman, 1987, p. 140).
The military is entwined with conceptualizations of masculinity and maleness, which makes it a particularly powerful location to explore questions of performance and meaning making around gender (Abrams, 1993). Within the military, the most masculine space is combat, an area from which women have historically been excluded. Dunivin (1994) conceptualized the ways in which masculinity and combat are intimately connected through her description of the “masculine-warrior paradigm.” Combat is tied directly to the ideas of being a “real soldier” and to being a “real man.” Questions surrounding women’s service in the military, and more recently their service in combat roles, have been informed by social ideas about femininity. Often these questions are not whether women can actually serve in combat but whether our cultural imaginings of women should serve in combat.
The ways in which women soldiers negotiate and perform gender within the masculine setting of the military is a topic that has interested scholars. Herbert (1998) explores the ambiguous space women soldiers occupy as the categories of solider and woman are generally socially constructed to be mutually exclusive. Howard and Prividera (2004) refer to this as the “female solider paradox.” Herbert argues that the military culture of masculinity poses a significant barrier to women’s success in the military, “the broader ideology of masculinity prevalent in the institution is much more effective in limiting women’s participation than either specific institutional or interpersonal constraints” (p. 6). Women in the military must consciously balance the demands and expectations of femininity with the demands and expectations of military service. Silva (2008) found that women Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) cadets had to work to maintain a balance of femininity and masculinity to be considered acceptable as soldiers.
Sasson-Levy (2003) found similar challenges facing women in the Israeli military. In her study of women in masculine military units, Sasson-Levy found that these women tended to suppress what they saw as their feminine identity to comply with the military’s androcentric norms. These masculine norms included exhibiting bravery, power, strength, success, and sexual freedom. These women soldiers expressed antifeminine attitudes; they believed in the inferiority of traditional feminine behavior and reported that the ideal image for a solider was male. For example, the women in Sasson-Levy’s study perceived behaviors such as caring about their external appearance or exhibiting gentle and soft-spoken behavior as weak and submissive. They perceived these feminine-typed behaviors as unacceptable for a soldier. In line with Butler’s (1990) emphasis on the performative nature of gender, she found that these women performed masculinized gender through such acts as wearing dirty uniforms, lowering their tone of voice, and using foul language. She also found these women trivialized sexual harassment as a part of their masculine performance. These findings are largely paralleled in the findings of the present study.
Method
This article reports on the findings of an exploratory study of gender norms, behaviors, and social contexts that shaped the experiences of U.S. Army women combat veterans. For this study, 12 U.S. Army women combat veterans of the Iraq war were interviewed by the first author during 2008–2009. To be included in this study, the women had to have been in combat in Operation Iraqi Freedom. This was determined by their eligibility for the Combat Action Badge. Respondents were recruited through snowball sampling and word of mouth. Interviews were conducted by phone and in person. Interviews were structured and followed a set of interview questions. The interviews included questions about demographics and personal background as well as questions about experiences and perceptions during military service. The resulting transcripts were coded using emergent coding to identify pertinent themes.
The interviewee names have been changed to maintain confidentiality. The pseudonyms used are Amy, Beth, Crystal, Dana, Erica, Fran, Grace, Hannah, Irene, Jenny, Kelly, and Lilly. Other identifying characteristics have also been masked. The women in this sample ranged in age from 25 to 32 at the time of interview. Respondents were of age 20–25 during their combat experience. Four of the women included in this study were physically injured during combat; one was medically discharged from the Army due to her injuries. The majority identify as White, while two identify as Asian or Pacific Islander. Due to the racial homogeneity of our sample, we do not analyze themes with regard to race or ethnic identity. Beth, Dana, and Jenny were enlisted personnel; Amy, Crystal, Erica, Fran, Grace, Hannah, Irene, and Kelly were non-commissioned officers (NCOs); and Lilly was an officer. There were also a variety of military occupational specialties that the soldiers were trained to perform; five were military police officers. Most of the women interviewed were single and had no children during their overseas deployment.
The small sample reflects the small population of women who served in combat before the formal lifting of the combat exclusion policy in 2013. The decision to work with a small sample was also driven by saturation and time constraints. The first author limited the sample to 12 when she felt that she was gaining little new information from additional interviews and focused resources on coding and analysis of the existing data. As a qualitative study with a small sample, these data are useful for in-depth exploration of the themes present in the narratives of these 12 service members. This small sample size limits the conclusions that can be drawn from these data; the following themes should be understood as exploratory and are not generalizable.
Themes From Narratives
Trying to Fit in: Tomboys and Sisters
The women in this study were serving in predominately masculine units while in combat. They were also among the first women to serve in combat positions in the U.S. military. As such, their position as women soldiers in combat was not always clearly defined. These women were faced with carving out a space within units that have historically been all male. In this section, we explore two narrative themes that came out in the interviews describing how these women sought or found conceptual spaces in these masculine units. First, we consider the ways these women narratively positioned themselves as being more masculine. Ways that these women performed masculinity included a shared identity as tomboys and through the denigration of femininity. We examine how the units created space for these women by using metaphors of family to indicate belonging and to normalize the role of female bodies in these masculine spaces.
Performing masculinity
Most of the women veterans interviewed identified as having masculine attributes. Many used the term tomboy when describing their perceptions of themselves before entering the military. These women often used this term to indicate thick social relationships with men during childhood and young adulthood. They often reported that they related well to men because they played with boys and acted like their male friends when they were children. They saw this identification as a positive one for military service; they felt they could relate better to men and be good soldiers because of growing up as tomboys.
Being a tomboy was often narratively associated with feeling more comfortable around men. Dana explains the connection she saw between her childhood and her military service, “As far as being the only girl in my squad, I’m used to being around boys. I was a tomboy. I have five older brothers. I was the only girl.” Irene expressed a similar idea: I got along with males more that I got along with females ‘cause I was raised around boys. I’m pretty much a tomboy, tomgirl I should say, but you felt that comfort zone because you always had someone watching your back and it being a male. A male is going to look after a female so I felt comfortable with males.
In addition to identifying with a masculinized childhood, the respondents expressed disdain for characteristics stereotypically associated with femininity. This can be understood from a sociological perspective as a performance of masculinity. U.S. society is androcentric and socially constructs masculinity and femininity as mutually exclusive. In this context, it is masculine to put down femininity. By drawing a distinction between “those women” and themselves, these women soldiers attempted to reaffirm their belonging in the masculine context of combat. This disdain for femininity was often expressed as part of a general preference for working with men. Hannah stated straightforwardly, “I got along better with the males than the females […] the young girls were immature in how they acted. And they often were boy crazy and flirted a lot and I just didn’t.” This preference was also framed through a denigration of traits seen as typically feminine. For example, Erica explained, “I actually tended to get along with male soldiers better than female. Sometimes, female soldiers just tend to be a little [catty].”
Fran mentioned her closeness with male friends throughout her interview and she often spoke about other women soldiers in a reproachful way. For example: It’s irritating when women join the military for the wrong reasons. It makes it hard on me trying to do my job when people have this perception of females that give it a bad rep. Like females that are whining, females who don’t want to do this [or] do that, crying over something, hooking up with all the men. I’m not that girl, so don’t treat me like that. I’m here to do my job.
Seeing themselves as tomboys also shaped these women’s expectations of the military; their experiences in childhood and young adulthood led them to believe that they would be accepted into the male-dominated environment of the military. They believed that physically and mentally they were similar to males, so it would not be difficult for them to join the military and even combat alongside their male peers. For example, Jenny stated, “I was a tomboy and gung ho.”
Kelly, who did not characterize herself as a tomboy, still expressed the expectation that masculinity and military service go together, “When people heard I joined the Army, they were shocked. I don’t like being outdoors and I don’t like getting dirty.” Despite this, Kelly reported having strong social ties with men in young adulthood, and she expressed the familiar disdain of femininity: I always tended to have more male friends ‘cause a lot of my experiences with my female friends we were in competitions to see who could be better and see who could get the guys. You don’t have that with male friends. You know, once you get over the initial, “Hey, we are not going to date,” then it’s a really cool, comfortable relationship ‘cause you are not competing for anything.
As has been found in other studies, these women sought a balance between masculine and feminine characteristics. Although they often emphasized performing masculinity as a way to fit in, some were also conscious of their performance of femininity. Irene explains: It sounded so shallow because we were in Iraq, but I always made sure, while my nails weren’t painted or anything, that they looked decent. I almost always wore make-up. I always made sure my hair was within regulations, but not you know awful looking. It was the little stuff like, […] just kind of a reminder ‘cause my soldiers would forget a lot that I was a girl. […] it’s nice sometimes for people to recognize the fact that you are a girl.
Motif of family
A common theme within the narratives of these women was using metaphors of family to describe their unit relationships. As used by these women in combat roles, this motif of family defined an acceptable role within the masculine space of the unit. While men may express inclusion by referring to each other as “brothers” (as in the expression “brothers in arms”), these women often conceptualized themselves in parallel but gendered roles: sister and mother. For example, Amy describes her social relationships with the men in her unit, “For the most part, I felt like I was in a maternal or sisterly role.” Jenny expressed her closeness with the men she served with, explaining how she referred to members of her unit, “this is my dad, this is my uncle, my fake dad, my fake uncle, my fake brother, my fake cousin.”
Among those who were a similar age and rank as the men in their units, sibling metaphors were dominant. Hannah expressed this idea, “I built a closer relationship with the males, like I said, they called me Sissy, so I was like their little sister.” Irene also utilized this metaphor, “I had a couple males that were like a brother to me, they were always looking out for me.” Dana uses this same metaphor and frames it as a way she felt included in the unit, “they were like my brothers. And to this day I love them all. I never had any problems with them and they always treated me like one of them.”
More senior ranking respondents were unlikely to be referred to as siblings, but the family metaphor was still common, with these women describing being placed in the role of “mom.” Lilly, a senior ranking soldier, explained how the metaphor of family developed as she became more comfortable with her role, “after a while my guys really started looking out for me, so they were like my kids. They started calling me ‘mom’ when we were over in Iraq.” Lilly went on to describe how she negotiated being called mom: All but three were older than me, but they still called me mom because I was the officer and the platoon leader, but as far as with my soldiers being the only female and the officer, I got the respect I needed.
Their prior experiences with masculinity and the places they found in their units led many of these women to believe that they would be easily accepted into the military. However, once these women joined the armed forces, they discovered that the belief that they would be welcome in this masculine domain was not necessarily accurate.
Being Excluded: Sexual Harassment
All the women combat veterans in this study experienced or witnessed sexual harassment and in some cases sexual assault. Sexual harassment continues to be an important area of concern for women in the military, with over half of women in the armed forces self-reporting experiencing sexual harassment (Ender, 2009; Firestone & Harris, 1999). Previous research (George, 2005; Pershing, 2003; Smith, Jacobson, Smith, et al., 2007) explores the complicated bureaucratic reasons women service members may be reluctant to report sexual harassment. Others (Johnson, 2003; Kimmel, 2000) have focused on the ways the social construction of gender within the masculine culture of the military leads women to downplay sexual harassment. Sasson-Levy (2003) discusses this phenomenon with an emphasis on the agency of the women soldiers. In addition to the concerns that reporting sexual harassment will prove that there is a “gender problem,” she identifies ignoring sexual harassment as a conscious strategy. She argues that women soldiers ignore harassment because to respond to it would “confirm the discourse that the harassment itself is trying to create, which constitutes women as sexual objects” (p. 455). In addition, recognizing harassment and assault places the woman soldier in the role of victim, undermining her own sense of herself as a soldier; “There is an inherent contradiction between the discourse and identity of the victim and those of belonging to the army and state on an equal footing” (p. 455). Trivializing sexual harassment may also have been a reflection of their sense that they were essentially powerless to change the culture of the military.
This tendency to normalize sexual harassment was found among the combat veterans in this study as well. Most of the women veterans interviewed felt like the sexual harassment was just “boys being boys.” They believed it was just part of being a woman soldier; it was to be expected as a part of the masculine culture of the military. For example, Beth connected her sense of sexual objectification to the predominately masculine environment, One of the problems is that since there is so many male soldiers sometimes you walk into a conversation you know about having sex with some other girls […] sometimes I’ll go with it and then sometimes I’ll be like ok I’m leaving. I can take sexual jokes up to a certain point, but there’s a certain point where it goes over the line […] I feel like sometimes I’m being looked at like some kind of sexual object instead of like a soldier.
Amy connected the pervasiveness of sexual harassment to the masculine culture of the military, “there is still a culture of women shouldn’t be there, the women are interfering with the mission.” She felt that she escaped a lot of harassment because she was seen as belonging in her platoon, “I had been there long enough that I was seen more like one of the guys.” At the same time, she noted that the policy of assigning individuals from other units to their unit on temporary duty could put women in contact with men who were not used to or comfortable working with women. She shared a story of this: When I first walked up to that assignment […] he said, “you don’t fuckin’ belong here.” And that was the mentality […] fortunately at that time I had been in the military long enough to know that even with all his rank […] I don’t [need to] care what you think. I’m here to do a mission and you will not interfere with that. Honestly, he was a male chauvinistic pig and I knew that he was just venting steam. Quite honestly I didn’t care what he thought and he was in no position to hinder my military career. So I didn’t care. He was just a jerk wearing a uniform and it didn’t bother me. [Filing a complaint] wasn’t worth it. I was able to get myself out of the situation before it got out of control and you have to weigh the consequences because as a female if you raise the flag that is all that is going to go with you. […] Honestly, I didn’t feel that it was worth making the mess that could have been made. At that point I really did want a 20 year career, […] so I didn’t want to mess up those chances based on boys being boys, not that I think it’s right, because I definitely don’t, but again you’ve got to see the bigger picture.
Several respondents indicated that sexual harassment was tolerated by leadership in the unit or treated as a joke. Amy explained that “women [who] complain are ostracized, they are told that it is their fault.” Hannah explained how she knew many higher ranking officers who would sexually harass women soldiers and/or condone sexual harassment: [It] is so prevalent and that pisses me off, excuse my language, but it does that it’s not recognized more. People, especially the higher ups, act like it’s not happening and sometimes they’re the biggest culprits. I saw Colonels do things overseas that were despicable. It makes me furious because I’ve lived it. I’ve seen it and I’ve been in more than one unit, you know, so I know it’s there. I had a girl yesterday tell me how this guy saw a picture in her office and was like, “Hey you’re really hot. I want to see you in civilian clothes” and that’s her EO [Equal Opportunity] officer […] and her [Lieutenant] wants to take her out to the bar and she’s not even 21 yet and she like won’t answer his calls so he goes, “You know what, I’m going to demote you.” I mean if I did half the [sexual] things in Iraq that people believed I was doing then I wouldn’t have time to go to work [laughs]. Every guy that I talked to, it was automatically assumed that I was having a relationship with them because I was a single female in Iraq. It made it really hard […] I didn’t like the impression that just because I had a close working relationship with somebody that we are automatically involved in some way. They tried to give me an Article 15
1
for a relationship that they couldn’t prove. They investigated it, did room searches and all this other stuff, they were committed to this idea that I was having a relationship with this soldier when I was not […] all [they] are doing is persecuting me because I am female. That was the most stressful part of it, I didn’t feel like I had anyone that I could confide in or turn to because everyone that I was close with were male and if I was constantly confiding in and turning to these people then it was automatically perceived that there was a relationship involved and that made everything extremely difficult. I was extremely isolating, especially since all the guys live together and hang out together, you know, they do everything together and then there is me. […] I’m like in a tent forever away all by myself, I’m the only one in the tent.
Hannah felt that sexual harassment was not a problem while she was deployed but found a very different culture stateside: When we came home I went to a unit where it was acceptable for certain male soldiers to say things or be rude and derogatory towards females in a sexual way. And I really hadn’t experienced that before. […] they would say sexual things like propositions, right in front of leaders and they just got laughed at. And if you didn’t take it like a man, like laugh at it too, then you were the bitch. Then you were trying to cause trouble.
Several respondents focused on harassment they experienced when they were young and new to the military. Fran, from above, was particularly attentive to these issues because of her own experiences as a newly enlisted soldier: Yeah, I had a [superior] who kept calling me and wanting to take me out and, he was just like “Are your boobs real and can I touch them?” and I wouldn’t go on a date with him so he would just find reasons to smoke me at drill and make me go get coffee for him and make me do things and then it got to the point where he exposed himself to me so I went straight to my team leader.
Discussion and Conclusion
The women in this study shared the many ways gender shaped their experiences in combat units. These Iraq combat veterans experienced a gendered mixture of empowerment and disempowerment in their military service. The military, as a gendered institution, was a venue of gender socialization and performance for these women. They expressed expectations that masculine characteristics would ease their way in this masculine institution. They also learned that gender constrained them. Although these women were breaking the gendered barriers that have kept women out of combat units, their gender continued to shape and constrain their experience, just as Herbert (1998) predicted. Their performance of masculinity was never quite enough; according to some of the women interviewed, they did not believe they were ever on par with the men. Regardless of how tomboyish they were or how much they defined themselves as different from other women, they were still seen as women. In the masculine culture of the military, this femininity, which they could not escape, was also a source of violence and degradation in the form of sexual harassment. In this final section, we consider the tension between empowerment and disempowerment experienced by these women. These women broke a glass ceiling and in many ways felt that they could do anything. At the same time, they were constantly reminded in a variety of ways that the military was a masculine space and that their success there depended on knowing that boys would be boys and being prepared to defend themselves against the predations of men who would never quite see them as equal.
Empowerment
The women interviewed in this study made historic strides as U.S. service women in combat. As they shared their stories, they expressed pride and a sense of accomplishment. Many saw their military experience as something that has had positive effects on them, despite the challenges they faced. For example, Hannah explained: I can do this myself. I don’t need people to stick up for me I don’t need you to change a tire for me, even things like that. I don’t need you to change the oil for me. I can do it myself. I appreciate when you’re trying to help me, but you know I can do it myself. I’m not helpless. I didn’t need anybody. Can you wash the dishes for me? No I got off my butt and did my dishes myself. And I mean it’s not as simple as that but it was like, I don’t need anybody’s help. I can do this on my own. I didn’t feel the need to be with somebody or need somebody else. I seriously and honestly believe that Iraq did that to me. Never rely on your gender and never let your gender stop you. Rely on your capabilities as a soldier and your capabilities in whatever your job is. Do your best and that’s all anybody can ask for. Never let anyone tell you that you can’t do something because you are a woman and never expect someone to allow you to do something because you are a woman. I really don’t see a problem with it. I’m really big on the man can do it then a woman can do it. And I think sometimes men get caught up in saying that women are emotional and women are over-reactive and all these typical women things […] and because of all of this women can’t handle combat. And that’s like kind of offensive because […] women are MPs, women are truck drivers, women are medics. All these jobs require them to be basically on the front line. [Women] can handle it just completely fine. And if that’s not a combat role in Iraq or any war then I don’t know what else is. I mean I understand that it’s not infantry but where can you place all this other stuff? Especially the medics who are out there seeing stuff every day, people see things that infantry never see. And yet they say that women can’t handle this. So it’s like really frustrating because I think if women can do one thing, then they can do everything.
Disempowerment
Despite the repeated sense of accomplishment and confidence these women expressed, they also expressed resignation to being constrained and limited by their gender; they felt like they could never be one of the guys. They were told by male soldiers within their company that they did not belong in the army. For example, Beth recounts being told, “You all can’t handle this because you are small, tiny and weak.”
The women in this study felt like they had to prove themselves constantly. Several respondents explained how men in their platoons were opposed to women being in the military. These women explained how they felt like they had to prove physically and mentally that they were worthy of being in the “boys’ club” of the military. As Grace said: I know there was [sic] certain men in our platoon and our detachment the first time that we deployed that were very much against women being in the military, situations like that I feel like I have to prove myself with them. They try to coddle you because you are a woman, and think that, “Oh, you can’t lift that heavy thing.” No, I’ll lift it myself. I know that when I got into my squad which was all males, they were waiting for me to screw up on something. I guess I felt like I had to prove them wrong. I’m a hard worker with everything I do, you have to bust your ass to get respect while if you’re a male you [can] just be a male.
One aspect of this conflicted sense of empowerment was the way the women in this study felt they were representatives of all women and future women in the military and the immense pressure they felt because of this. While they saw themselves like the guys, they also understood that their mission performance would have real effects on future women. It was impossible for them to escape the feminine identity, which in a masculine-dominant culture was a liability. For example, Dana’s advice to other female soldiers was to “know that it’s not easy, there’s going to be stereotypes and you are just going to have to work harder than the males do.”
When asked about what it was like working with so many men, Hannah responded by saying: they [men] say that women can’t handle this. So it’s like really frustrating because I think if women can do one thing, then they can do everything. You know if you mess up in the beginning, it follows you. And you can’t let that happen. It still is a man’s Army; even though there are more females [now]. I think females, also, need to know that they do need to set the standard. They do need to represent other females because one female giving us a bad rep ruins it for the rest of us. To thy own self be true. That’d be my advice. You need to know yourself going into the military. You need to be comfortable with who you are and you need to know what you’re willing to put yourself through and what you don’t want to put yourself through. I came in at 20; I did some things I was not proud of. Men will take advantage of you given the opportunity. It does not matter if you are in the same uniform as them or not. Given the opportunity, men take advantage of women. It’s human nature. I hate to say it but it is. […] you have to know yourself; you have to able to realize, you have to tell yourself am I going to let myself be taken advantage of or am I not? And if you’re not then you have to stand up for yourself and speak for yourself. […] So that’s why I say: To thy own self be true, know thy self. And be prepared to fight for yourself. Nobody’s going to do it for you.
As the U.S. military expands roles for women, including in combat, there is increased discussion of gender integration. What is demonstrated by these women, however, is that these discussions are not really about integrating women into the masculine culture of the military but rather about assimilating female bodies into the masculine culture of the military. Women are not being welcomed as additions to the military force but rather accepted and tolerated as long as they abide by the masculine ideal. These women demonstrated the value of including women in combat units and paved the way for the opening of combat roles to women. However, in breaking this ground, they also learned that within the military, femininity was seen as a weakness and experienced as a vulnerability. They learned to police their own behavior and the behavior of other women, and they internalized expectations of sexual harassment and assault; boys will be boys and girls must defend against this for their own protection and in order to be taken seriously as soldiers. Women are entering the masculine domain of the military in increasing numbers and in new roles; whether this will change the culture of masculinity is yet to be seen.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Note
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
