Military sociology
In 2021, 8% of female military personnel experienced unwanted sexual contact. This was the highest percentage since the DoD began this data collection in 2004. Of an estimated 35,900 total sexual assaults, only 7,260 were reported. The reporting rate was 20%, which had fallen from 30% in 2018. Only 42% of cases resulted in court-martial proceedings. The confidence of female personnel in being treated "with dignity and respect" by their chain of command after reporting an assault was 39%, a decrease from 66% in 2018.
During World War II women served in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corp (WAAC) which was later renamed Women's Army Corps (WAC). In addition, there was WAVES, or Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Services.
Jane Addams and Cynthia Enloe have been identified as women who have contributed key ideas to military sociology. Addams's influence stems from her feminist perspectives on peace and its influence on peacekeeping. Enloe's influence is traced to her feminist view of the military.

Homosexuality and the military: Homosexuals were not recruited but have served in the U.S. military from World War II (and most likely every war) to the Clinton presidency. In 1993, the Clinton administration began the policy of "Don't ask, Don't tell, Don't pursue", meaning that military personnel will be neither compelled ("Don't ask") nor allowed ("Don't tell") nor harassed ("Don't pursue") to disclose or discuss their sexual identity while serving in the military. The "Don't ask, Don't tell, Don't pursue" policy actually had the effect of increasing discharges due to homosexuality from 617 in 1994 to 1,273 in
2001. Estimates have been made that in 2000 there were 1 million gay and lesbian veterans in the U.S. population as based on census information. Homosexual women with partners reported higher rates of military service than other women, while homosexual male veterans served for a similar amount of time as heterosexual male veterans.

Military and society: 

Political control of the military: In the modern relationship between the military and the state, the state relies on the military to protect it from external threats as well as violence between various internal groups. Concurrently, the military draws so-called 'violent resources' from the state and from society. Such resources can include money, technology, raw materials, and manpower. The relationship has changed somewhat from the 16th and 17th centuries, however, where internal centers of power and specific sectors of society (e.g., skilled builders or guilds) were somewhat more autonomous than the rest. These sectors were not under the direct control of the sovereign power and could avoid feeding resources to the state. This meant that pre-modern militaries were 1) somewhat weaker than the modern version due to a lack of state-funded resources but also 2) powerful sectors of society that controlled certain privately funded resources and which could raise their own mercenary forces if needed.
As this system began to evolve, states started to exert more control over society by exploiting 'existential fears' which led to the creation of various bureaucratic methods including mass conscription, tax systems, and territorial centralization. The result is that various civil sectors began to work exclusively for the state, which in turn desired a stronger military, and which used these sectors to extract more resources and more manpower for exclusive military use. This 'modern' military now was reliant on the state for its very existence, whereas, in pre-modern times, the military could be the tool of various autonomous sectors of society.

Military's use of research and industry: Burkard Schmitt a Research Fellow for the EU Institute for Security Studies identifies two types of research. Pure research is done from the bottom-up with no specific demand and are long term oriented. Capability research is done from the top down, most research of this type is defined for mostly military use with a specific goal in mind.

Europe
Few European countries have had significant investments in research and technology. National sensitivities and defense companies that are hesitant to share research findings has long hindered research in Europe. This is beginning to change with the formation and strengthening of the EU and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). The EU is currently implementing its "Agenda for advanced research relating to global security" which is crucial to the future of European security. The idea in Europe is that research should be undertaken by all member states. A goal for member states and something to aid future research is a "harmonization" of military requirements.

United States
The American model for research is based on the old German standard, which the Americans emulated starting from the founding of the American Chemical Society in 1876. The use of research and industry to develop new and more deadly chemical and biological weapons is an intriguing aspect of the modern military. German universities were involved in early chemical gas development for use in World War I. German universities "carefully cultivated the ideal of science as an emphatically value-free activity; they bestowed upon their wards the right and the duty to serve the interests of knowledge and to brush aside other interests with which the welfare of scientific pursuits might clash." American universities also had chemical labs, Harvard University began work on poison gas in 1917. By World War I, the chemical industry began to influence politics because of the great interdependence between industry, military and politics.
The amount of research that is done relates to the U.S. economy, which includes the largest military budget in the world. This has created a strong link between military, the state, and corporate America. This has been called the "military industrial complex", but the military has also dominated large university science departments. This concept is the military industrial academic complex, or MIA.

Notable Scholars: The following scholars have published widely in military sociology. Many have held editorial responsibilities for the journal Armed Forces & Society and leadership positions in the professional organization the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society (IUS). 

Morris Janowitz, founder Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society and founder and Editor-in-Chief Armed Forces & Society
David R. Segal, Editor-in-Chief Armed Forces & Society, President and Chair Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society
James Burk, Editor-in-Chief Armed Forces & Society, President and Chair Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society
Charles Moskos, President and Chair Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society
Mady Segal (Military Families and Women in the Military)
Brenda Moore (Women and Minorities), editorial board Armed Forces & Society
Joseph Soeters (Peacekeeping and Methods) editorial board Armed Forces & Society
Giuseppe Caforio
John Sibley Butler (minority participation in the military)
Bernard Boene, editorial board Armed Forces & Society
Morton Ender, editorial board Armed Forces & Society
Meredith Kleycamp (recruitment) 
Nicholas Jans (Professionalism), editorial board Armed Forces & Society
Christopher Dandeker (Veterans), editorial board Armed Forces & Society
Gerhard Kümmel, editorial board Armed Forces & Society
Paul Camacho (veterans), editorial board Armed Forces & Society
Guy Siebold (cohesion) 
Anthony King (combat and cohesion), editorial board Armed Forces & Society
Yagil Levy, Editorial board Armed Forces & Society
Patricia M. Shields, Editor-in-Chief, Armed Forces & Society
George Kaffes, Professor of Military Sociology at the Hellenic Army Academy, https://sse.army.gr/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/CVeng-1.pdf

See also: Bullying in the military

References: 

Recommended reading: Armed Forces & Society
Caforio, Giuseppe, (ed.), Handbook of the Sociology of the Military, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2006
Grandstaff, Mark. "Military Sociology" in Charles Messenger, ed. Reader's Guide to Military History (2001) pp 363–64 online; evaluates major books
Malesevic, Sinisa. 2010. The Sociology of War and Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paparone, Chris. 2013.  The Sociology of Military Science.  NY: Bloomsbury.
Sarkesian, Sam C., Williams, John Allen, Bryant, Fred B., Soldiers, Society, and National Security, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, 1995

Further reading: Segal, David and Morten Ender. 2008. “Sociology in Military Officer Education.” Armed Forces & Society, vol. 35: pp. 3–15. [6]
Ender, Morten; Ryan Kelty and Irving Smith. 2008. “Sociology at West Point.” Armed Forces & Society, vol. 35: pp. 49–70. [7]
Kawano, Hitoshi. 2008. “The Expanding role of Sociology at Japan National Defense Academy: From Not to Some and More?”Armed Forces & Society, vol. 35: pp. 122–144. [8]
Obraztsov, Igor. 2008. “Teaching Sociology in Military Educational Institutions of Russia.” Armed Forces & Society, vol. 35: pp. 162–179. [9]
Kucera, Thomas (2014).