Feminist theory and gender studies: Reflections for the millennium

Millennial Reflections on International Studies

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 321-329

  Tickner, J Ann ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 21344463881     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (21)

1. Cynthia Enloe, Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989).
2. V. Spike Peterson, ed., Gendered States: Feminist (Re)Visions of International Relations Theory (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1992).
3. Some of the early texts include Enloe, Bananas, Beaches, and Bases; Grant and Newland, Gender and International Relations; Peterson, Gendered States.
4. Christine Sylvester, Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
5. J. Ann Tickner, Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992).
6. Sandra Whitworth, Feminism and International Relations (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994).
7. Marysia Zalewski, “All These Theories Yet the Bodies Keep Piling Up”, in Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski, eds., International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
8. Sandra Whitworth, “Gender in the Inter-Paradigm Debate”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 18, no. 2 (1989): 265-72.
9. Christine Chin, In Service and Servitude: Foreign Female Domestic Workers and the Malaysian “Modernization” Project (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998).
10. Hilary Charlesworth, “Feminists Critiques of International Law and Their Critics” Third World Legal Studies (1994-95): 1-16.
11. See Peggy McIntosh, “Interactive Phases of Curriculum Re-Vision: A Feminist Perspective” (Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, Wellesley, Mass., 1983). McIntosh is using history as her example, but her analysis could equally well be applied to the discipline of international relations.
12. Katharine Moon, Sex among Allies: Military Prostitution in U.S.-Korean Relations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997).
13. Katharine Moon, Sex among Allies: Military Prostitution in U.S.-Korean Relations 15.
14. Chin, In Service and Servitude.
15. Jane Mansbridge, “Frontier Research and Crucial Questions for Research in Feminist Theory” (paper presented at the Frontiers of Women and Politics Research Workshop, APSA Women and Politics Seminar, Harvard University, 1998).
16. Enloe, Bananas, Beaches, and Bases, 8.
17. Nancy Gallagher, “The Gender Gap in Popular Attitudes toward the Use of Force”, in Women and the Use of Military Force, ed. Ruth Howes and Michael Stevenson (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1993), 29.
18. Mary Caprioli, “Gendered Conflict”, Journal of Peace Research 37, no. 1 (2000): 51-68.
19. Mark Tessler and Ina Warriner, “Gender, Feminism, and Attitudes toward International Conflict: Exploring Relationships with Survey Data from the Middle East” World Politics 49, no. 2 (1997): 250-81.
20. Lisa Brandes, “Research Frontiers in Gender and the International Order” (paper presented at the Frontiers of Women and Politics Research Workshop, APSA Women and Politics Seminar, Harvard University, 1998).
21. This issue is discussed in some detail in Martin Hollis and Steve Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990). These authors conclude that bridging this divide is not possible.