This article was downloaded by: Kobe University On: 05 Jun 2019 Access details: subscription number 25289 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

The Ashgate Research Companion to Political Violence

Marie Breen-Smyth

Feminist Reflections on Political Violence

Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315613413.ch14 Laura Sjoberg Published online on: 18 Dec 2012

How to cite :- Laura Sjoberg. 18 Dec 2012, Feminist Reflections on Political Violence from: The Ashgate Research Companion to Political Violence Routledge Accessed on: 05 Jun 2019 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315613413.ch14

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: Kobe University At: 08:08 05 Jun 2019; For: 9781315613413, chapter14, 10.4324/9781315613413.ch14 In 1985, Betty Reardon’s Betty 1985, In gendered and its impacts are gendered. Looking theoretically at women who commit by gender ‘all the way down’, that is, that political violence is gendered, its actors are are impacted by political violence. It then argues that political violence is constituted who people the and violence political commit who people the violence, political of begins by chronicling some important components of feminist work on the meaning It points. those illustrating examples of number a alongside understanding, this to of nature gendered political violenceandtheviolentreproductionofgender inglobalpolitics. the of account taking without produced be cannot violence political on scholarship ethical and rigorous accurate, such, as that, and international security studying to essential normatively and empirically conceptually, is violence. In this research, feminists argue from a variety of perspectives that gender betweenpolitical relationships and complex the stereotypes gender-based gender, definition of ‘war’ and to explore women’s multiple roles in conflict with an eye for the broaden to security of students urged has wars of fighting and making the on remained a mainstay in feminist reflections on political violence. Feminist research cannot has subordination gender to violence links intrinsic its to reference political without understood be that point fundamental the argument, her formulated re- and critiqued on, expanded has violence political and gender on programme women andcompletedisarmament’(Reardon1985:97). for equality achieving generation: our of tasks transformative major two the goal of the same root problem, Reardon suggests that it is a good idea to take on ‘as one 1985: 37). Because she sees political violence and gender subordination as products (Reardon status’ achieve to ritual combative deadly the through play who victims and ‘aggressors are there where dualism of system a – is Reardon, to according these, between link The 2). 1985: (Reardon cause’ underlying same the of manifestations twin that but related, symbiotically such are only not militarization’ problems two and ‘the oppression sexist between ‘interrelationships are This chapter provides an overview of the theoretical arguments that lead feminists While over the 25 years since the publication of Reardon’s book, a vibrant research Feminist Reflectionson Political Violence and theWar System Laura Sjoberg made the argument that there that argument the made 14 Downloaded By: Kobe University At: 08:08 05 Jun 2019; For: 9781315613413, chapter14, 10.4324/9781315613413.ch14 ecofeminists, to name but a few. a but name to ecofeminists, and postcolonialists post-structuralists, theorists, critical constructivists, realists, liberals, as terms, number ofdifferent IR in a – are lenses gendered through look there feminists which in ways Asaresult, time. across and cultures in different people different by lived is gender Instead, world. the in power’ gendered of Still, there is not one ‘women’s experience’, ‘experience of ’ or ‘experience 5). 1998: (Steans processes’ international understanding to central is gender which waysin the out trace [and] powerrelation of kind particular a as gender on ‘focus and itisessentialtothinkingaboutsolutionspromoting positiv outcomes; predicting and causes analysing in important is it is; violence political political what understanding for conceptually, ways: in necessary, main is three it in violence matters gender that argue They divides. public/private and political ‘political violence’ more broadly than traditional notions, questioning the personal/ of category the conceptualize to tend feminists result, a As violence. political and gender-based These femininity. hierarchies construct, change and and enforce meaning masculinity in global social and between political life, hierarchy the within ‘masculinity’ positioned one and masculinities just of hierarchies not but ‘femininity’, one is masculinity’ and there … that on recognize value Feminists higher 181). a 2009: place (Sjoberg to tend women and men symbolic ‘both where of life, political system and social ‘a organizes which as hierarchies’ social gender creates that meaning understand frequently they research, this In emotional, public/private, strong/weak,rational/ public/private andaggressive/passive. including life, political and social in dichotomies other of number a with socially are constructed, categorizations but gender way,are reliant this on In the 33). male/female 2006: dichotomy, (Sjoberg which women is be associated to people perceived those and men be to perceived people those to assigned rules’ and norms, 1 into divisible is life to characteristics and people associated with femininity. In this reading, ‘gender’ political and social in assigned status devalued the is subordination gender terms, a part of a daily life as a political movement to end gender subordination. In feminist terms, theory as practice – theorizing that is both research in (1996) the Zalewski’s traditional sense Marysia and in is, (IR) relations international in scholarship Feminist andtheMeaningofPoliticalViolence concludes Thechapter with aproposedfeministreadingofpoliticalviolenceasgenderedconcept. violence. political of matter subject comprehensive the a to of essential understanding is violence ‘political’ as counts what and is gender what both of understanding broader a that contends chapter this violence, terrorist The Ashgate Research CompaniontoPoliticalViolence Feminist scholarship, then, looks at the world through ‘gender lenses’, which lenses’, ‘gender through world the at looks then, scholarship, Feminist Feminists in IR study how gender influences and is influenced by . This typology comes from Tickner and Sjoberg (2010), but others exist (like the one the (like exist others but (2010), Sjoberg and Tickner from comes typology This masculinities and 1 , which are ‘stereotypes, behavioural behavioural ‘stereotypes, are which femininities, These ‘perspectives yield different, sometimes different, yield ‘perspectives These 262 e change. Downloaded By: Kobe University At: 08:08 05 Jun 2019; For: 9781315613413, chapter14, 10.4324/9781315613413.ch14 politics andacademicwork (Mohanty2003). global in feminists, between relations even and relations, gender in reflected are imperialism under established subordination and domination of relations colonial that ways the on focus feminists, post-structural of assumptions epistemological the of many sharing while feminists, Postcolonial 2008). masculine, Shepherd 2001; example, Hooper (for the politics global empower constitute (violently) to and feminine the serve marginalize dichotomies, public/private and emotional how on strong/weak,particularly rational/ meaning, of manifestations linguistic gendered focuses post-structuralism Feminist 2001). Prugl and (Locher generally politics global and specifically violence political by shaped are and shape gender about ideas that ways the on focuses constructivism Feminist 2006). Steans 1998; Chin example, (for violence political as violence discursive of understandings to gendered identity and gendered power in world traditionally politics, contributing particularly as of violence, manifestations material and political ideational the explores from feminism Critical defined. them protecting and politics global of gender oppression can be remedied by including women in the existing structures 2009) focuses on the subordinate position of women in (see global states politics al. et Hudson 2004; Caprioli example, (for betweenwork feminist and Liberal 1989). Whitworth politics argues power that and strategy in gender of role the on focuses foci through research gendered lenses. different For example, offering feminist work conflict, from a sometimes realist perspective and differ, violence political with in thisvolume,Chapter11). a as weaponand (Peterson and Runyanrecreational 2009: 127) (see also as Staub on ethnopolitical violence war in institutionalized is rape that demonstrated have serious threat to women’s security posed by wartime rape (Hansen 2001), feminists the out pointing to addition In 1993). (Enloe peace of times warin of than times in prevalentmore is haverape scholars that feminist out example, pointed For 1996). (Card conflict armed in participation gendered and war in violence sexual about security, gender-based perspectives have also uncovered new empirical knowledge Enloe 2000). In addition to critiquing concepts traditionally employed in the study of (Whitworth 2004) and various aspects of militarization and soldiering (for example, the non-combatant immunity principle (Kinsella 2005; Sjoberg 2006), peacekeeping 1987), (Cohn strategy nuclear about debates of foundation the at assumptions and language gender-based found have Feminists resolution. conflict and gender conflict and in women of roles various the analysing from insights theoretical and empirical gained also have scholars Feminist 2001). Tickner 1996; Pettman 1992; (Peterson bias that war, of light violence, in state, re-definition urging the itself, security as even and such peace relations, international of concepts core the in nature oftheinternationalsystem. Still, this work shares a normative and empirical interest in the gender-hierarchical contradictory, insights about and predictions for global politics’ (Sjoberg 2009: 183). Still, as some scholars point out, feminist approaches to defining and dealing and defining to approaches feminist out, point scholars some as Still, bias gender the demonstrated have feminists violence, political on research In Kimberly Hutchings’workuses, discussedlaterinthischapter). Feminist ReflectionsonPoliticalViolence 263

Downloaded By: Kobe University At: 08:08 05 Jun 2019; For: 9781315613413, chapter14, 10.4324/9781315613413.ch14 The Ashgate Research CompaniontoPoliticalViolence or notitisever ajustifiabletool to useasameanspoliticalends. is one of many) to political violence differ on questions as fundamental as whether different feminist approaches (however categorized,such, and Hutchings’As categorization dichotomy. protected/protector the of nature gendered/hierarchical the warriorjust the of existence problematizes the feminism is postcolonial and trope) care feminism sees the beautiful soul as the Hutchings’ ideal while political actor gendered), (where the are problem they that In is tropes the ideal with problem protection. the the (and actor as political for warrior just the need sees feminism the enlightenment then, and understanding, non-violence to femininity trope soul’ links ‘beautiful the while links women/femininity, trope of warrior’ protection ‘just to the masculinity understanding, dichotomy Elshtain’s souls In warriors/beautiful 1987a). Elshtain just (see Elshtain’s Jean this To illustrate uses Hutchings conclusions. point, different to come they lenses, gendered through postcolonial approachesevaluate politicalviolencesituationally. such, As violence. political of definition or meaning the of understanding generic a or decision-making ethical for framework feminist/feminine generic, a posit not (Hutchings 2007: 95). Still, in contrast to care feminism, does the effects of measures promoting particular values and principles are experienced’ which in the way affects it because secondly, principle; valueor right, particular a of meaning the affects the it because firstly, feminism, twofold: is context of postcolonial significance ethical ‘for explains, Western Hutchings As privileging 2003). and (Mohanty context values lacking exclusive, is approach enlightenment the that argues feminism Postcolonial feminism. postcolonial of that is discusses Hutchings 2007;Ruddick1989).‘Care’feminismseesnon-violenceasacorevalue. distortion of enlightenment feminism’s model of the human’ highly (Harris and King violence 1989; of use the problematic’ because any such legitimation would be of seen to reflect ‘the masculine legitimation the ‘renders lens Robinson feminist 95; This 2007: 1999). (Hutchings zero-sum) and competitive (as politics of nature the and independent) and unitary rational, (as actors political assumptions of nature the about masculine overturn to politics global of practitioners and students guides feminism care then, politics, global In 95). 2007: (Hutchings work’ caring human inter-dependence and the generalization of the values inherent in women’s of recognition the on based self-consciously is that ethics an ‘for argues feminism a partofthepersecutionjustwars (Carter 1998;Hutchings2007). be to rights women’s support and violence overmonopolies political of means the men’s contest women suggests approach This 95). 2007: (Hutchings available’ are rights, including rights of women, where no human alternative to means threats to address gross the of threat ‘situations in particularly violence’, political of uses of justification violence. the ‘makes which thought political of school a as surrounding ’ ‘enlightenment questions characterizing approaches, these ethical of parameters the outlines Hutchings the Kimberly to approaches diverse hl ec o tee prahs ok a ad nesad pltcl violence political understands and at looks approaches these of each While Hutchings that violence political to approaches feminist of category third The Care feminism. ‘care’ of that is uses Hutchings that categorization second The have feminists violence, political of study the in foci diverse to addition In 264 Downloaded By: Kobe University At: 08:08 05 Jun 2019; For: 9781315613413, chapter14, 10.4324/9781315613413.ch14 are secured by state “protection” in times of war and peace’, contest ‘discourses ‘discourses contest peace’, and war of times in “protection” state by secured women are which to extent ‘the interrogate politics’, security of international irrelevance in and women of nonexistence supposed the ‘question to served has violence that make not does violence political of issues on work feminist political Instead, unproblematic. or gender-neutral work on work from gender of omission These the politics. that global of practice and theory observations lead the to a final common in theme for the playing feminist study of political gender violence: feminist see that role scholars diverse and broad the is violence political of study feminist the inequality in perceived gender difference (Hooper 1998). perpetuating A third common theme for violently order, social competitive a in weight unequal awarded are masculinity and femininity with associated valuessocially the then femininity’, and women with associated those over masculinity and men with associated knowing and being of ways of elevation the questioning not by hierarchy gender naturalizes in the realm of international security. If ‘masculinism is the ideology that justifies and valuesthe of nature prized gendered the of understanding an is violence political of ecological destruction (Tickner 1992). The second common theme in feminist studies and subordination gender poverty, rape, violence, security domestic also but war define only not security to includes approaches violence view, this In terms. multi-level and multi-dimensional Feminist in broadly violence. that from protection merits what or who and violence as common counts what of first understanding broad The a is tenet tenets. common several has it gender diverse, addressing is violence programme political the research and While terms. momentum Hoffman’s a in as concept, violence political surrounding questions ethical the considering directions’ (Hoffman2001:48). numerous with river currents one rather than as as a series of conceived rivers flowing in be different and to even contradictory needs it view, my in then, defined, coherently be to is feminism ‘if that argues He 25). 2001: (Hoffman reflexivity for concern a feminist with commensurate also is flexibility this that asserts Hoffman agenda. theoretical and project research singular a as seen diverse,be are can they though feminisms, that means This 25). (2001: creators’ their of formulations transcends the which movement inner an demonstrate They subversive. inherently therefore are concepts ‘momentum that means contends, Hoffman flexibility, This to accommodate new interpretations, internal disagreement and change over time. or another. Therefore, the boundaries are constantly changing both size and shape thing one as strictly than rather it about dialogue the by defined is idea an words, areconcepts concepts Momentum which have an egalitarian and 8). anti-hierarchical ‘logic’ (Hoffman 2001: 23). In other 2001: (Hoffman possible analysis makes that way a in validity conceptual holding still while change, and conflict internal gaps, interpretational difference, accommodate can which concept’, ‘momentum the a of idea and the introduces Hoffman violence commonality. within diversity political as thereof ethics to approaches feminism’s see can aframework we provides which Hoffman John through 98).Still, in (2007: they, other that each considering critique resolved’ effect, definitely be cannot politics world in ethics hs hpe ves eiit prahs o eiig oiia voec and violence political defining to approaches feminist views chapter This of feminist accounts different between ‘debates that concludes Hutchings Feminist ReflectionsonPoliticalViolence 265 Downloaded By: Kobe University At: 08:08 05 Jun 2019; For: 9781315613413, chapter14, 10.4324/9781315613413.ch14 men’s realm is outside the home (in business and in politics) and women’s realm is which dichotomy, public/private were mentionedintheintroduction tothischapter. the of criticisms feminist is violence, political in agency about theorizing feminist of broadly. and difference, theoretical more this of action root The political define and actors political of spectrum broader a to attention pay above, mentioned as agents approaches, the Feminist as violence. states political of on focus science studies), terrorism political of exception in possible particularly the (with violence, political of theories traditional Many Feminism and Agents of PoliticalViolence multiple experiences,arepoliticalactors(Goldstein2001: 53). and relationships multiple their with people, that reveal lenses gendered Instead, individual If subordination. gender of subjectivity is power important, then states are the not the only actors against in international politics. tool a as subjectivity individual women’s prioritize contrast, by Feminisms, 1998). (Steans individual experiences. and people of States claim to be unitary, however, and have become a symbolic substitute amalgamations for the diverse but entities, monolithic not daily politicallife’(Sjoberg2006:52). from normal life’ (1996: 30). Instead, ‘war is a process that affects and is affected by bounded separate, a as ‘war vastlyactivity human removedof warrealm that a assumptions is indicate sphere to references explains, Cuomo Chris As violence. suffering that leads up to and followsthe warsomit and takescan attentionviolence away frompolitical everyday of understandings Crisis-based event’ 31). discrete 1996: (Cuomo a as than rather process, a or continuum, a as understood best is and human rights’ (Sjoberg 2006: 51, citing Steans 1998). In this interpretation, ‘war to relates it as militarism, shortages, food violence, structural poweroutages, casualties, violence ‘civilian political theorize to appropriate also is it But to terrorism. attention with and planes with battlefields, on militaries, in violence political theorize to appropriate is It violence. political of manifestations different the and security normally ignore, including the impacts 116). of war of on 2002: individual understandings women’s traditional lives that (Sylvester suffering the to emphasizes attention calls theory Feminist feminism that femininity and women about peoples’ lives. Definitions of war as state action omittowards many ofstate the political concerns the from violence especially of object the safety, re-focusing margins, political human the at individual emphasizes approach This 2001). (Tickner understand physical, structural, ecological and sexual violence as political violence feminists security, international of producer or of product direct a is it that levels gendered securitypracticesaddressonlywomen’(Blanchard2003:1290). where women are linked unreflectively with peace’ and critique ‘the assumption that The Ashgate Research CompaniontoPoliticalViolence h gnee bss f h pbi/rvt dcooy s h epcain that expectation the is dichotomy public/private the of basis gendered The are states that insight the inspires margins political the for concern Feminists’ the on only violence political about think security of theorists most While 266 Downloaded By: Kobe University At: 08:08 05 Jun 2019; For: 9781315613413, chapter14, 10.4324/9781315613413.ch14 theories of individual (men’s) violence shows violence (men’s) individual of theories to women discourses. Adding masculine by set been already have which of terms the analysis, an to women adding are women, to applied when even and, men to actions. Many of the theories of individual violence have been shaped by attention a man) as a stereotype and masculinized understandings of knowledge, values and explicitly not are that theories Those women. exclude implicitly or explicitly either violence non-state actors(Sjoberg2006). dichotomy ranks states as the agents in political violence and ignores the agency of public/private the denaturalize to theorizing Feminist invisible. or marginal havebeen war) make who actors ‘non-state’ or war in suffer who (civilians various iterations its in sphere ‘private’ the while over-visible) even (perhaps visible been has state the of sphere ‘public’ the then, violence, political about theorizing most non-state armed groups to civilians, it shares marginalization in war theorizing. In sphere in international politics is multi-layered and includes a range of actors from private the Though 2008). (Eckert visibility from sphere private the shielding and international society’, it has a similar function, calling attention to the public sphere as treated been private have mattersbeyondthecontrolor authorityofthestate’(Eckert2008). rape) marital or violence domestic as (such spaces private these in happen that things ‘the words, other In (1991). world’ male public, the to attached is significance greater … women of domain appropriate the as seen is … world private the while men; of province natural the as regarded is exercised, are Chinkin and Shelley Wright argue, the ‘public realm … where power and authority devalued socially, politically and economically. As Hilary Charlesworth, Christine women’s lives, are not of concern to the public sphere. As such, the private sphere is thus privateand sphere, the while sphere, public the of members other to concern of are lives, men’s thus and sphere, public The homemakers). (as home the inside are many obligations that ‘people do not choose, actively or passively’ (Sjoberg (Sjoberg passively’ or actively choose, 2006: 124). Gendered lenses see not the incompleteness of choice because they do recognize ‘people that obligations many are There 2001). MacKinnon (see history its throughout theory feminist of tenet a been voluntary, iscomplicatedby anumberofmitigatingfactors. is not always explicit or voluntary; and, second, the process of consent, even when consent first, areas: important two in short up comes however, decision-making, political in role individual’s an of understanding This 1228). 1989: (Hirschmann necessities human of number a to access easy and protection with them provides on limitations some which society a in live to accepted right the for exchange in havecapacity decision-making their contract, social or consent explicit through (state) actors’autonomy. of idea the is science political in agency of theories with had have critics feminist both women, but the ways that they are gendered has made them inadequate to explain Replicating this public/private dichotomy, most theories of individual political individual of theories most public/privatedichotomy, this Replicating to domestic from differ divide public/private the of terms ‘the While The contention that consent in the social contract is not always voluntary has has voluntary always not is contract social the in consent that contention The actors, that assumption the with begin violence political of theories Most e’ voec ad oe’ voec. n mjr on o cneto that contention of point major One violence. women’s and violence men’s about men only or about men gendered in their appraisal still rely on a male actor (as Feminist ReflectionsonPoliticalViolence 267 not only that these theories omitted theories these that Downloaded By: Kobe University At: 08:08 05 Jun 2019; For: 9781315613413, chapter14, 10.4324/9781315613413.ch14 edrd otx ad niiult. nldn peiul hde gender hidden previously Including individuality. and context gendered the politics would need to at the same by time account for political and social motivations, but cooperation, and harmony by ambivalence andconflictinherentintheenvironment. accomplished not is construction mutual This constructed. socially mutually and vulnerable mutually dependent, others. mutually are other and self with the of identity and existence or the interpretation, this In around against, act to autonomy limited their actors use interdependence, to this choose can Given 2006). (Sjoberg them’ around or with either instead but others, without made not are ‘decisions Accordingly, constraint. any without never and unavailable entirely never are but constrainees, fellow with or are assumedvoluntarily,thenobligationisrelational. obligations all not and freely fully made are choices all not If interaction. political intersubjective. Responsibility is freely fully assumed are responsibilities (Hirschmann 1989). Instead, a relational autonomy approach sees responsibility as and made are choices all that idea the critiques agency of question the to approach feminist identity A 1992). (Sylvester individual remains choice, of freedom the and agency human on limits of maze choice and the social construction of internal will and desire. Yet, limited powerdifferentials, (gendered) unavailability, individuals’ (occasional) its within this complex choices, incentive limited to want to choose are some other option. Actor choice, there then, is constrained by required, is choice which narrow the possible gains from this choice, (or giving which any people other) less in situations all almost in that fact the by mitigated is consent that is describes, second Hirschmann as complexity, The obligations. ignore and choose to capacities different have complexity, thus and first The factors. mitigating powerdifferential with table’ ‘consent the to come people that above,is discussed as serve it surrounding complexities (Hirschmann 1989:1239). choice’ free in implicit freedom the belie positions bargaining ‘unfair result, a As social in 1239). 1989: (Hirschmann Often, recognition the return not need men and men recognize 204). 2004: (Hirschmann must women agency) meaning obligor, the men and obliged the are women relationships, to thus (and powers to freedoms access and less have groups social oppressed where membership, group social on based relationships differ limitations These power. must obligatory gendered by governed always words, are women other that In 2001). obligations (Tickner of households list in perform laundry a by headed control, emphasize femininity of understandings traditional while 1233) 1989: (Hirschmann freedom terms. Traditional understandings of political agency and responsibility emphasize of thegeneralassumptionthatobligationisassumedfreelybymenorwomen. either implicitly or explicitly. Seeing this to, agreed as not havetrue they that of obligations assigned women are often allows Women for 1228–9). 1989: the interrogation (Hirschmann agency social and obligation political of structure the in bias gender The Ashgate Research CompaniontoPoliticalViolence Any move towards a gender-conscious theory of individual violence in global in violence individual of theory gender-conscious a towards move Any constraints within made be can decisions autonomy, relational of world a In many the consent: of idea the of shortcoming second the to us brings This gendered on beings human to assigned is obligation non-voluntary Further, responsive and interactive, based on the social and 268 Downloaded By: Kobe University At: 08:08 05 Jun 2019; For: 9781315613413, chapter14, 10.4324/9781315613413.ch14 political environments, but are relationally tied to others. Further, women’s agency agency women’s Further, others. to tied relationally are but environments, political socio- their of autonomous entirely not are agents These politics. global of margins the at and power of positions mainstream in both individuals, are so but violence, political of agents states are only not that out point Feminists violence. political of studies in agency that of analysis the of nature gendered agents’ the questions those and actions of interpretations complex more suggests agents, considered actors to theperceptionthatwomenarebetteratpeace of election women to the public office in states recovering and from conflicts have also constitutions been attributed post-conflict in quotas gender of inclusion The 35 rus ht oe ad edr hud e ae it acut n peace- in account into taken be should gender processes building and women that argues 1325 Resolution Council Security aggressive. and competitive more be to expected are cooperative and peaceful than men, will be better at ending conflicts than men, who sensitive,emotional, more be to expected are they because women, perceivedthat mark ofculturalpurity;eliminatingonecouldeliminateanother. the was purity women’s that Plavsicargued Biljana Republic Serb the of President For culture. the of example, in advocating bearers ethnic cleansing, it the is alleged that as former biologist and seen then- are women because part in least at group, 11, this volume). Genocidal rape is seen as a way to corrupt and eliminate an ethnic women as productive and reproductive of the opponent’s nation (see Staub, Chapter moms andbeautyqueensoridealizedimagesoffemininity. soccer of terms in described was which Americans, of life’ of ‘way the protecting Afghan women from the Taliban government. It was also justified by protect an interest in would it that claim a by part in justified was Afghanistan of invasion US Women are a crucial a are Women and behave according to traditionally accepted standards of femininity are constant. the in study ofpoliticalviolence. and the world policy is the in note both women feminists of treatment that the of trends nature the gendered of One supplying, war. fighting, of making, reconstructing planning, and the ending in women for looks and this, notes are victims of a number of different forms of political violence. Feminist theorizing concern tofeministthinking:women’smultiplerolesinwar. central of area an to ideas those of application an with the section this conclude will I in actors as at look they commission of political who violence and how they consider the agency of those actors. both complicate should violence political of contemporary manifestations’ (Tickner1992:129). their and definitions, conventional their origins, historical this in gendered are alike, men and women all, us affecting insecurities the of many how inequalities in the analysis of individual violence in global politics ‘allows us to see Feminist work on the question of agency in political violence, then, broadens the the broadens then, violence, political in agency of question the on work Feminist Women are also often incorporated into peace-building processes because it is it because processes peace-building into incorporated often also are Women Women are often abused and raped in war because belligerents see the opponent’s Across women’s multiple roles in war, expectations that women are feminine are women that expectations war, in roles multiple women’s Across and violence political of aspects different of number a in agency have Women theories that suggest violence political in agency of accounts feminist short, In because casus belli women are crucial to international peace and security. and peace international to crucial are women Feminist ReflectionsonPoliticalViolence (justification) for fighting wars. For example, the example, For wars. fighting for (justification) 269 than menare. Downloaded By: Kobe University At: 08:08 05 Jun 2019; For: 9781315613413, chapter14, 10.4324/9781315613413.ch14 victimization in political violence: first, that gender subordination and victimization the conflict(Kandiyoti2007; Shepherd2006). to related violence domestic or sexual experienced have women Afghan three in one and marriages forced face women of cent per 70–80 education, to access have violence. men’s from an them Even in of the new, more protect liberal, post-conflict regime, only challenges 30 to per cent of Afghan unable the often with is deal that government today unstable women gone, are Taliban the of policies conservative the While Taliban. the and military US the between crossfire the in died women to of thousands invasion, US the forbidden During toe. cover to head to were from forced themselves and escort They male a without governance. house the leave conservative to allowed not of work, brunt the bore women infrastructure damage,joblosses,resourceshortages and lapsesintheruleoflaw. years or even decades later. These impacts come in the form of preventable disease, civilian casualties when the shooting stops, many women feel the effects of war for substantial cause counting stop often organizations often international and states While casualties. female warfare (Giles indiscriminate involuntarily and or misestimation Target voluntarily 2011). prostitutes, as serving work, sex structured war- to subjected are women Many abuse. sexual to eye blind a turn and fighting for them prepare to first men feed often managers camp since camps, refugee in against discriminated and oppressed are Women conflicts. and wars by displaced persons of majority the comprise also Women of conflicts. most in majority casualties civilian the are Women genocide. or cleansing ethnic of weapon a as used is rape where conflicts in exacerbated is violence Sexual situation. political other any threat of sexual violence in wartime, as rape rates are higher during conflicts than in attacks on their homes and communities. Women are confronted with an increased infrastructural from resulting conflict, of times in vulnerability social and medical increased to subject often are Women hardship. financial of times in to duties other addition in manage must to they which accession resources, limited experience with head often household women wartime, political In by affected gender-specific. are are women which violence in ways the of most but – completely theyare to that and committed commonly inhuman’ (2006: 1). Political violence affects the women in different are ways – from barely – violations humanity sex-specific [women’s] that their denial of denial double-edged ‘the violence political in political violence. Catherine MacKinnon calls international reactions to gendered Feminist theorizing is particularly interested in questions of gender and victimization Feminism andtheVictims ofPoliticalViolence associated with femininity and in women ways which roles: defy gender-essentializing stereotypes. gender-appropriate perceived to commit, participate limited in, plan and prevent political be violence, both in ways traditionally not should and not is The Ashgate Research CompaniontoPoliticalViolence Two messages arise from these brief understandings of the sex differential in differential sex the of understandings brief these from arise messages Two For example, in the struggles for power in Afghanistan prior to the US invasion, 270 Downloaded By: Kobe University At: 08:08 05 Jun 2019; For: 9781315613413, chapter14, 10.4324/9781315613413.ch14 recruitment ofmilitaryforces atboththestateandnon-statelev the motivatorfor important an been has themselves protect to expected be cannot who children, and women as such groups, vulnerable protect to wars fight males children young that notion The 2001). Tickner 1987a; (Elshtain people vulnerable other and women, protecting self-sacrificially warrior, just a is soldier a of image where subservience and obedience are the norm (Eichler 2006; Enloe 2008). Another institutions in self-esteem maintains and recruits attracts Greeks, the to back goes which masculinity, heroic of type a or manhood’, ‘Military ‘womanly’. be to not is soldier a like act to feminine; considered be could that anything of denigration teach men to fight (see Goldstein 2001). Importantly, such training depends on the to necessary thought training misogynist through soldiers into men turn to hard work must militaries denied, rarely is war of manliness the While investigations. this research, the In association between masculinity and war has been central to feminist understandings. gendered and politics political gendered in with laced victimization are of violence understandings and violence political in agency of Feminist research has shown that the meanings of political violence, understandings Political Violence isConstitutedbyGender of life(mass-mediaoligopoly)(Brock-Utne1989:44–50). quality reducing and violence indirect organized, time of absence leisure and speech); of of freedom (inequality life of quality unorganized decreases of which absence violence indirect dumping); (nuclear lifespan decreases which violence (unequal working conditions on the basis of absence gender); of organized, indirect direct and absence violence of (war); unorganized, indirect violence which decreases physical lifespan personal, organized, violence of direct absence and violence); partner physical (intimate personal, unorganized, of absence include: These concept. the specifying peace, positive of existence the for conditions necessary of to desire a ‘political violence’, but also as describe structural characterized violence. Brigit traditionally to Brock-Utne things lays out other a peace’ and number terrorism war, ‘positive only not term eliminate the used have researchers vein,feminist this peace In violence. structural asincluding violence political defined have scholars feminist Many systems. justice social and welfare social of structure gender-unequal the and conflict, and war of impacts long-term disproportionate poverty,of gender- gendering waysthe the gender-unequal of in form itself the in manifests violence Structural 110–11). 1975: (Galtung potential their to living from ‘Structural 44). 1989: as physical, economic, domestic (Brock-Utne and other forms of violence which stop peace’ individuals ‘positive it describes who Galtung, Johann of work the in originated that term a is violence’ and violence’ ‘structural of range broader a in look the places forthecommissionandimpactsofpoliticalviolence. to in researchers women?’ inspires the violence are political ‘where of question impacts the asking that second, and, overlap; n atclr fmns pae eerhr hv fcsd n h cnet of concepts the on focused have researchers peace feminist particular, In Feminist ReflectionsonPoliticalViolence 271 els. Downloaded By: Kobe University At: 08:08 05 Jun 2019; For: 9781315613413, chapter14, 10.4324/9781315613413.ch14 certain interlocking assumptions: that all human existence is bound by the state; the by bound is existence human all that assumptions: very interlocking certain the of but war of Shepherd argues that ‘national security’ making discourses are gendered because they hold the of violence. to of forms ‘everyday’ other ‘war’and only separating of literature possibility intellectual not security critique international feminist the a of articulate critiques six and literature security’ they areacontinuum(Cuomo1996). – 2001) (Tickner violence family and poverty, violence, ethnic violence, structural ‘war’as understood debt, foreign unemployment, conditions, working unsafe and of use competitive the traditionally violence of than sort the between relationship a security is there result, a to As force. paths other are there that argues work feminist game, zero-sum a as it see security of interpretations conventional While women. individual of lives the on war of impacts the and levelgendered nature state the at war of the including ignore, normally analysts security that suffering to attention calls studies security Feminist 116). state 2002: the (Sylvester prioritize of might members feminized other and women that concerns political war, many of components omit action of state as war of number Definitions gendered. as a practice, in and see conceptually feminists Instead, war. of gendering the and afterwards. wartime during merit they respect the decreases which protected, be to liability a outside of wartime (Elshtain 1987b: 4). According to just war narratives, women are gendered immunity norm, but the gender stereotypes the affect the by meaning of protected gender not women are only Not level. every almost on war by affected The illusion of protection, however, is just that, as women’s lives are detrimentally war. of fighting and making the by protected were really women if acceptable be the self-conscious power of universal life’ (1987a: 142). Being without choice might and desire of immediacy the state; and family war; and peace life; public and life home between souldom: beautiful bourgeois to preliminaries historical as sealed got divisions social ‘certain that explains Elshtain war-fighting. or war-making in agency or choice either without are women for, fought be to objects the As them. subordinates actually protected’ ‘the as women of image the and is skin-deep appearance only this However, wars. fight or make to expected not are they while This stereotype initially appears to benefit women; after all, they are to be protected The Ashgate Research CompaniontoPoliticalViolence duty to protect women; this duty fuels men’s desire and ability to fight in wars. Huston explainsthatmenwillfightforwomen,even ifthey have in nootherreason: fight to ability and desire men’s fuels duty this women; protect to duty violence simultaneously enable war and subordinate women. It is men’s masculine In a recent book, Laura Shepherd (2008) combines six critiques of the ‘national the of critiques six combines (2008) Shepherd Laura book, recent a In find feminists that war a fighting is who of question the in only not is it Yet, As Nancy Huston explains, images of femaleness as a justification for political for justification a as femaleness of images explains, Huston Nancy As he isslain.(Huston1983:279,emphasisinoriginal) represents for the warrior, the love she bears him, the tears she will shed she when virtue the ; is it often very war; as undertaking an insane as into u tee las ean a least at remains always there But sacrifice, at least at sacrifice, one transcendental value that justified rushing headlong rushing justified that value transcendental one 272 od esn o ae h supreme the make to reason good Downloaded By: Kobe University At: 08:08 05 Jun 2019; For: 9781315613413, chapter14, 10.4324/9781315613413.ch14 (his) fighting, and the justificatory narratives behind the making and fighting of fighting and making the behind narratives justificatory the and fighting, (his) excuse to nothing has actor violent politically masculinized the protect, to other other: each necessitate feminized the Without protection. which requires violence violence; concepts requires protection complementary but opposites, andprotection war not violence of are Instead, nature evolve. the conflict in as roles disappear women’s and not changes will violence political of nature gendered enable war and provide space for its gender-subordinating justifications and effects. femaleness in the gender-stereotypical beautiful soul narrative, then, simultaneously war.of cause crucial a as read be then can feminine the of protection of images The political to both crucial violence and its is justificatory narratives. other The feminized other feminized requires protection; the a of presence the understanding, the then this them, In types. gender-ideal differentiated tosustain on rely to seen be could itself war roles of practice gender differentiated on relied have narratives victorious these practice, in argues, Elshtain been as and, war has all of narrative practice the victorious to key a argues, Huston as If, souls. beautiful (feminine) about brave, just (masculine) citizen-warriors rescuing or protecting pure, innocent story a included war then about narrative (1987b) victorious Elshtain belligerent’s each Jean that it. contended fight to needed troops and resources the rally war and the justify to ability belligerent’s a to key is war a about narrative victorious meaning ofgenderinglobalpolitics. the and war of meaning the both understand to order in second the of possibility the consider to fruitful is it that I suggest influence, some has explanation first the gender subordination and the justification of modern warfare. Whilelinks it isfundamentally likelythat that something is there that be could it second, and, it; from ofthe evencenturies and from decades perception that women twopossible were the beresidue pure, has innocent victims of – war in could need of protection it itless first, explanations: with resonate war-fighting and war-making in roles a variable, as gender of thecontinuity constitutive forceandananalyticcategory. byshowing in history and ofanalysis eras levels different different factors, causal different emphasizes that consequences war and of causes meaning, the on scholarship together link can gender that argue Feminists interlinked. and gendered both necessarily is politics global in violence that argues work feminist other and Hers 171). (2008: violence’ gender and security international of conceptualizations across elements common share … gender of reproduction violent the and international the ‘the of that reproduction proposes violent She 71). 2008: (Shepherd desirable is world liberal a that and in absolute terms; that security should be conceptualized in terms of emancipation; including: the existence of a benign global civil society; that the security can that be achieved contends assumptions, erroneous contains She also security international on literature scholarly 68). 2006: (Shepherd increased be to needs that militarization and achieved; be never can security that state; the to external and eternal is violence that system; anarchic the or nature human from derives behaviour that f hs edn o pltcl ilne s osiue b gne i cret the correct, is gender by constituted as violence political of reading this If gendered a that argument (1983) Huston’s Nancy cited I chapter, this in Earlier The consistency of gendered discourses of political violence – even as women’s Feminist ReflectionsonPoliticalViolence 273 Downloaded By: Kobe University At: 08:08 05 Jun 2019; For: 9781315613413, chapter14, 10.4324/9781315613413.ch14 terrorists orwar criminals,butaswomen can maintain gender stereotypes. Women who commit violence are often told not as military integrated an even that demonstrates military, integrated an in equalities as but soldiers as not soldiers women in interested were people femininity: of salience the actual representation as members of the fighting force. She attributes this to in a rise women’s to disproportionate far was which soldiers female for attention media of per cent in the Vietnam War to seven per cent in that war), there was an concentration percentage of deployed soldiers who were women went the Warup (when from Gulf less First than the half of of beginning one the in that, argues Enloe Cynthia 1993). (Enloe attention media of amount disproportionate receiveda terrorism and crimes war commit who women of percentage small politics relatively the global First, 1991). (Cockburn in role gender-neutral or gender-equal a have they mean not does men as crimes same the committing women are there that fact The portrayed. are with female participation in violence, as well as how these women’s acts of violence compared as male of scale the in differences continuing the by however, rebutted, is perception initial This hegemony. male of domains last the of some are violence 2004). (Ehrenreich Atequality first, this appears to be a logical deduction: certainly, political andgender criminal of victory the of proof as conflict some by heralded every been has almost in criminals war as violence political of arenas in women of presence increasing The world. the around and rape, genocidal and genocide in perpetrators as protesters, as terrorists, as insurgents, as soldiers, as – 2007) Gentry narratives) (forexample,Butler1993). stereotypical (like subordination gender of elements performative and discursive sacrificed as little white as possible and has paid little attentionhas life tothe political global into integration women’s Instead, 2000). (Enloe pace same the at disappearing not are doing be not should and should women what about that were traditionally understood as the exclusive things domain of the men, but of stereotypes more doing are women politics: global into integration women’s of paradox a identified have relations international and gender of scholars Several Feminism andWomenwhoCommitPoliticalViolence that but they constituteeachother. interlinked, intrinsically violence politically are and only subordination not gender that demonstrate to violence political women’s of studies feminist of example the use I chapter, this of section next the In subordination. gender of lynchpin a is system war the and war-making of lynchpin a is gender hierarchy, violence, and political violence is central to the political building to and central maintenance is of other gender the of feminization the If war. and stereotypes gender of constitution theoretical mutual the considering then, from gained is, be to leverage There empirical and conclusion. victorious their without stalled are wars The Ashgate Research CompaniontoPoliticalViolence Women participate in political violence on almost every level (Sjoberg and and (Sjoberg level every almost on violence political in participate Women , a distinction which, rather than highlighting the gender gender the highlighting than rather which, distinction a women soldiers, 274 terrorists andwomen war criminals. Downloaded By: Kobe University At: 08:08 05 Jun 2019; For: 9781315613413, chapter14, 10.4324/9781315613413.ch14 drive but criminals sexual violent strong unhealthily an and Instead, victims. sexual terrorists worse, or, disturbed not sexually are women stories, these In violence. in sparks theinterestof‘theirmalevoyeur’ (Kennedy1992:262). which liberation’, ‘sexual terrorists’ women with fascination a betrays it Instead, terrorists. female of politics the with do to little has however, interest, This 261). provoked more interest and speculation than their male comrades’ (Kennedy 1992: all ‘have Gang, Baader-Meinhof the and Underground Weather the in women as that attention such terrorists, female that the disproportionate finds Kennedy Helena Indeed, attract. women violent produces that difference this is gender It 133). perceived 1995: (Smart male’ a by deviancy than pathology deeper ‘much a to due as deviancy female viewed system justice criminal the in many that found Smart 1995). (Smart deviant sexually as viewed were crimes girls’ because boys, criminal a with girls that record are three times more likely to be recommended recognized for institutionalization than Smart Carol USA, the in crimes women’s Studying men. of those than deviant more and from different are crimes women’s justification forpoliticalviolence. from ideal-typical femininity and maintain the feminized other as the victim women of violent and separate once at violence women’s of women’s stories – them breaking deny are that who terms women discuss that narratives in in even preserved are tropes Gender agency. couched narratives, bytheir stylized aremarginalized within stories obfuscation women’s violent attention, media of amount disproportionate a receives violence women’s though Therefore, politics. global engage in violence would change both the way we see women and the way we see first place (Keitner 2002: 40). As such, acknowledging that women might choose to the in violence that of incapable her deem that stereotypes gender of defiance her to relationship women’s about violence and specifically. A violent generally woman has committed two roles crimes: her violence, women’s and about discourses dominant interrupt would violence in agency women’s of stories because sex, of protected (Young 2003). These depictions, however, are buried under the language be should others whom from people the are they protection, requiring of Instead of violentwomenthroughsexualdepictions(Keitner2002;Shapiro2000). singularity the emphasize stories publicized and public stereotype, underlying the of falseness the acknowledging of Instead 2002). (Keitner peacefulness female and can decide to commit a violent crime defies who thewoman a stereotypeclear: becomes ofviolence bothpolitical women’s femaleof helplessness transgression’ ‘double not the where is This is 1989). (Morgan victimization and woman instinct sexual of combination a a by them violence, commit to compelled women’s is she because and actions violent her sex for responsible between link the Given violence. These characterizations of violent women link sexual deviance and engagement engagement and deviance sexual link women violent of characterizations These that understanding the from stems portrayals these of nature gendered The The reality is that women who commit violence interrupt gender stereotypes. gender interrupt violence commit who women that is reality The or sexual deviance and dependence are seen as the root causes of female female of causes root the as seen are dependence and deviance sexual Feminist ReflectionsonPoliticalViolence 275 Downloaded By: Kobe University At: 08:08 05 Jun 2019; For: 9781315613413, chapter14, 10.4324/9781315613413.ch14 Brock-Utne, B. (1989), B. Brock-Utne, lnhr, . 20) ‘edr Itrainl eain, n te eeomn of Development the and Relations, International ‘Gender, (2003), E. Blanchard, References feminist several and politics, global research programmesarenowexploringthedynamics ofthatrelationship. in violently reproduced is gendering and the of depth explored. Feminist be the scholarship thus to far has beginning noted that just that political is violence is violence argues gendered political and chapter subordination gender between this link politics, global women’s in of violence example political the Using concepts. political interrelated and intrinsically subordination are gender violence that and gender, by constituted is violence violence toincludestructuralandgendersubordination. political of definition the broadening in instructive is women on effects violence’s political examining but women, affect disproportionately violence political only traditional does not that out critique pointing violence, also political in theorists victimization of Feminist understandings autonomous. and unitary are actors critiquing that rational, violence violence, political on political literature most in in prevalent assumption agency the constitutes what questioned feminists violence, political in actors considered are who addition people of range In the expanding to too. organizations non-governmental and individuals but violence, political of agents are that states only not is it that note Feminists lenses. gendered through violence political in victimization and agency of understandings revise to and violence, political of practice and theory the understand genderasanecessarycomponentofunderstandingpoliticalviolence. in role diverse and broad a their through accumulation in multi-level terms, understand theorizing political violence as gendered, see knowledgegender playing feminist to diverse security define approaches Feminist contributes differences. their through and commonalities where violence concept, political ‘momentum’ on a be to feminist considering theorizing approach, latter the takes chapter This whole. or a conflict of in parts as as violence: political gendering about think to ways two are there suggests, Hoffman John as Still, contrasting violence. political of ethics offer the of understandings and violence, political and gender between relationship the of aspects different on focus thought feminist of schools Different politics. global in gender of reproduction violent the and violence political of nature gendered the about insights different have violence political on perspectives feminist Different Conclusion The Ashgate Research CompaniontoPoliticalViolence 1289–313. Feminist Security Theory’, Security Feminist political that hold also violence political of nature the about insights Feminist Feminist scholars therefore work not only to re-define political violence, but also Pergamon Press). Feminist PerspectivesFeminist PeacePeaceon and Education Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society and Culture in Women of Journal Signs: 276 (New York:(New 28:4, Downloaded By: Kobe University At: 08:08 05 Jun 2019; For: 9781315613413, chapter14, 10.4324/9781315613413.ch14 hn C (1998), C. Chin, to Approaches ‘Feminist (1991), S. Wright, and C. Chinkin, H., Charlesworth, Harris, A. and King, Y.King, (1989), and Harris, A. Enloe, C. (2000), C. Enloe, Enloe, C. (1993), Elshtain, J.B.(1987b),WomenandWar (NewYork: NewYork University Press). ulr J (1993), J. Butler, Caprioli, M. (2004), ‘Feminist IR Theory and Quantitativeand Theory IR Methodology: ‘Feminist (2004), M. Caprioli, Critical A lhan JB (97) ‘gis Adoey, n hlis A (ed.), A. Phillips, in Androgeny’, ‘Against (1987a), J.B. Elshtain, Carter, A. (1998), ‘Should Women Be Soldiers or Pacifists?’, in J. Lorentzen and J. Lorentzen in Pacifists?’, or Soldiers Be Women ‘Should (1998), A. Carter, Card, C.(1996),‘RapeasaWeapon ofWar’, Hypatia Ehrenreich, B. (2004), ‘Prison Abuse: Feminism’s Assumptions Upended: A Uterus cet A (08, Js Wr hoy n te R)rvtzto o Force’, of (Re)Privatization the and Theory War ‘Just (2008), A. Eckert, Eichler, M. (2006), ‘A Gendered Analysis of the Chechen Wars’, Cohn, C. (1987), ‘Sex and Death in the World of Rational Defence Intellectuals’, Defence Rational of World the in Death and ‘Sex (1987), C. Cohn, (1991), C. Cockburn, Cuomo, C.J. (1996), ‘War is Not Just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Significance the on Reflections Event: an Just Not is ‘War (1996), C.J. Cuomo, Galtung, J. (1975), Goldstein, J. (2001), ie, . 21) ‘oe Fre t Fe’ i Ch, . (ed.), C. Cohn, in Flee’, to Forced ‘Women (2011), W. Giles, Hansen, L. (2001), ‘Gender, Nation, Rape: Bosnia and the Construction of Security’, Enloe, C. (2008), C. Enloe, International Law’,AmericanJournalofLaw85:4,613–45. University Press). CA: University ofCaliforniaPress). Analysis’, Routledge). L. Turpin(eds), L. is NotaSubstituteforConscience’,Los Angeles Times Conference, National Annual Palmer HouseHotel,Hilton,Chicago,IL,3 April. MPSA the of meeting annual the at presented Journal ofPolitics Malaysian ‘Modernity’Project Organizations Signs: JournalofWomeninCultureandSociety Everyday Violence’, Hypanthia Rowman &Littlefield). (London: Polity). of Violence (Oslo:University ofOsloPress). International FeministJournal ofPolitics (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press). (Berkeley, CA:University ofCaliforniaPress). Politics Equality (Boulder, CO:Westview Press). (NewYork: NewYork University Press). International StudiesReview6:2,253–69. The Morning After: Sexual Politics at the End of the Cold War (London:ZedBooks). n evc ad evtd: oeg Fml Dmsi Wres n the and Workers Domestic Female Foreign Servitude: and Service In Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives Women’s Militarizing of Politics International The Maneuvers: Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of‘Sex’ Limits Discursive the On Matter: That Bodies Globalization and Militarism: Feminists Make the Link the Make Feminists Militarism: and Globalization The Specific Contribution of Peace Research to the Study of the Causes The Women and WarReader and Women The 8:4,486–511. War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa n h Wy f oe: e’ Rssac t Sx qaiy in Equality Sex to Resistance Men’s Women: of Way the In Feminist ReflectionsonPoliticalViolence Rocking the Ship of the State: Towards a Feminist PeaceFeminist Towards a State: the of Ship the Rocking (New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press). 11:4,30–45. 277 3:1,55–75. (New York and London: New YorkNew YorkLondon: (New and 12:4,687–718. 11:4,5–17. , 16May. International Feminist Women and Wars Feminism and Nw York: (New (New York: (New (Berkeley, Paper

Downloaded By: Kobe University At: 08:08 05 Jun 2019; For: 9781315613413, chapter14, 10.4324/9781315613413.ch14 Hoffman, J. (2001), J. Hoffman, ishan N (99, Fedm Rcgiin ad biain A Feminist A Obligation: and Recognition, ‘Freedom, (1989), N. Hirschmann, The Ashgate Research CompaniontoPoliticalViolence Hirschmann, N. (2004), N. Hirschmann, Huston, N. (1983), ‘Tales of War and Tears of Women’, in J. Steihm (ed.), C.F. Emmett, and R. McDermott, B., Ballif-Spanvill, M., Caprioli, V., Hudson, opr C (2001), C. Hooper, Hooper, C. (1998), ‘Masculinist Practices and Gender Politics: The Operation of of Operation The Politics: Gender and Practices ‘Masculinist (1998), C. Hooper, Morgan, R. (1989), R. Morgan, oat, . (2003), C. Mohanty, Locher, B. and Prugl, E. (2001), ‘Feminism and Constructivism: Worlds Apart or Apart Worlds Constructivism: and ‘Feminism (2001), E. Prugl, and B. Locher, War’, of Laws the in Gender and Sex Civilian: the ‘Securing (2005), H. Kinsella, Kennedy, H.(1992),Eve was Framed:WomenandBritishJustice Criminal the in Women Violent of Images Vamp? or ‘Victim (2002), C. Keitner, Gender of Politics The Challenges? New or Dilemmas ‘Old (2007), D. Kandiyoti, Peterson,V.S. Runyan,and (2009), A.S. Gender, Knowledge, of Theories Boundaries: ‘Transgressing Peterson,V.S.(1992), MacKinnon, C. (2006), C. MacKinnon, MacKinnon, C.(2001),SexEquality Hutchings, K. (2007), ‘ and Political Violence’, Political and Ethics ‘Feminist (2007), K. Hutchings, Pettman, J.J. (1996), J.J. Pettman, oisn F (1999), F. Robinson, Reardon, B.(1985),SexismandtheWar System(NewYork: Teachers’ CollegePress). (Princeton, NJ:PrincetonUniversity Press). Approach toPoliticalTheory’,AmericanScienceReview (2009), ‘The Heart of the Matter: The Security of Women and the Security of Security the States’, InternationalSecurity33:3,7–45. and Women of Security The Matter: the of Heart ‘The (2009), Politics (eds), Parpart J. and Zalewski M. in Relations’, International in Masculinities Multiple Relations (NewYork: Palgrave). Solidarity Press). Sharing theMiddleGround?’, Cambridge University Press). (eds), R. Duvall, and M. Barnett, in Justice System’,ColumbiaJournalofLawandGender11,38–80. and Reconstructionin Afghanistan’, Development andChange38:2,169–99. 44, 90–106. 183–206. Relations’, International and Square Press). Men’s Wars (Oxford:Pergamon Press). Westview Press). Relations (Boulder,CO:Westview Press). New York: Routledge). The ‘Man’ Question in (Boulder, CO: Westview Press). (New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press). (Durham, NC:DukeUniversity Press). The Demon Lover: The Roots of Terrorismof Roots Lover:The Demon The York:(New Washington al Sae: aclnte, nentoa Rltos ad Gender and Relations, International Masculinities, States: Manly Worlding Women: A Feminist International Politics International Feminist A Women: Worlding Gender andSovereignty: Feminism, theState, and International lblzn Cr: tis Fmns Ter, n International and Theory, Feminist Ethics, Care: Globalizing eiim ihu Bres Dclnzn Ter, Practicing Theory, Decolonizing Borders: without Feminism Are Women Human? Women Are The Subject of Liberty: Towards a of Freedom of Theory Feminist a Towards Liberty: of Subject The 21:2, Millennium: Journal of International Studies International StudiesQuarterly45:1,111–29. (NewYork: FoundationPress). Global Gender Issues Global Gender 278 (Cambridge: Governance Global and Power (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Harvard MA: (Cambridge, , 3rd edn (Boulder, CO: (Boulder, edn 3rd , (London:Vintage). International Politics International 83:4,1217–44. (London and (London Women and Downloaded By: Kobe University At: 08:08 05 Jun 2019; For: 9781315613413, chapter14, 10.4324/9781315613413.ch14 Steans, J. (1998). Smart, C.(1995),Law,Crime,andSexuality(London:Sage). tas J (2006). J. Steans, yvse, . 19) ‘eiit ad elss iw uooy n Olgto in Obligation and Autonomy View Realists and ‘Feminists (1992), C. Sylvester, yvse, . (2002), C. Sylvester, Sjoberg, L. (2009), ‘Introduction to Sjoberg, L. (2006), hped L (2008), L. Shepherd, Bush the in Gender of Constructions References: ‘Veiled (2006), L. Shepherd, Whitworth, S. (1989), ‘Gender in the Inter-paradigm Debate’, Kurki, T.and Dunne, S., Smith, in ‘Feminism’, (2010), L. Sjoberg, and J.A. Tickner, ike, .. (2001), J.A. Tickner, ike, .. (1992), J.A. Tickner, Sjoberg, L. and Gentry, C. (2007), C. Gentry, and L. Sjoberg, Zaleswki, M. (1996), ‘“All These Theories Yet the Bodies Keep Piling Up”: Theorists, Shapiro, A. (2000), ‘Unequal Before the Law: Men, Women, and the Death Penalty’, udc, . (1989), S. Ruddick, Young, I.M. (2003), ‘The Logic of Masculinist Protection: Reflections on the Current htot, . (2004), S. Whitworth, NJ: RutgersUniversity Press). Visions ofInternationalRelations (ed.), V.S. Peterson, in Relations’, International Directions (London:Polity). Zed Books). of Politics Administration Attacks on Afghanistan Post-9/11’, Oxford University Press). M. (eds), Press). University Press). (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press). Global Politics Studies 18:2,183–213. hois ad hoiig, n mt, . Boh K ad aesi M (eds), M. Press). Zalewski, and K. Booth, S., International Relations: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Smith, Cambridge University in Theorizing’, and Theories, American JournalofGender,SocialPolicy,andLaw Houghton-Mifflin). Security State’,Signs:JournalofWomeninCultureandSociety (Boulder, CO:LynneRienner). International Studies18:2,265–72. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 2nd edn (Oxford: 8:1,19–41. Gender and International Relations: An Introduction (New Brunswick, (London: ZedBooks). Gender, Justice, and the Wars in Iraq edr n Itrainl eain: sus Dbts ad Future and Debates, Issues, Relations: International and Gender aenl hnig Twrs Pltc o Peace of Politics a Towards Thinking: Maternal edr Voec, n Scrt: icus a Practice as Discourse Security: and Violence, Gender, edrn Wrd Politics World Gendering Men, Militarism, and UN Peacekeeping: A Gendered Analysis Gendered A Peacekeeping: UN and Militarism, Men, Nw ok Columbia York: (New Relations International in Gender Feminist International Relations: An Unfinished Journey Unfinished An Relations: International Feminist Feminist ReflectionsonPoliticalViolence Security Studies: Feminist Contributions’, (Boulder,CO:LynneRienner). , Monsters, Whores: Women’s Violence in Violence Women’s Whores: Monsters, Mothers, 279 Nw ok Clmi University Columbia York: (New 8,427–70. (New York: Lexington Books). edrd tts Fmns (Re) Feminist States: Gendered International FeministJournal Millennium: Journalof 29:1,1–25. Nw York: (New (London: Security Downloaded By: Kobe University At: 08:08 05 Jun 2019; For: 9781315613413, chapter14, 10.4324/9781315613413.ch14 This pagehasbeenleftblankintentionally