Introduction to security studies: Feminist contributions

Security Studies

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 183-213

  Sjoberg, Laura ^a  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449574227     PISSN: 09636412     EISSN: 15561852     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09636410902900129     Document Type: Article

References (229)

1. J. Ann Tickner, Hans Morgenthau's Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 17, no. 3 (December 1988): 429-40.
2. This is Robert Keohane's endorsement on the back cover of Ann Tickner's book, Gender in International Relations: Feminist Approaches on Achieving Global Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992), back cover.
3. Christine Sylvester, Feminists and Realists on Autonomy and Obligation in International Relations, in Gendered States: Feminist (Re)Visions on International Relations Theory, ed. V. Spike Peterson (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1992).
4. Robert Keohane, International Relations Theory: Contributions of a Feminist Standpoint, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 18, no. 2 (1989): 245-53.
5. I do not use this term with any essential content and am hesitant to use it at all for fear of reifying/reproducing a dichotomy the existence of which is problematic for me and for the other authors in this special issue. Still, as discussed below, there are problems with ignoring disciplinary power dynamics and terminology as well. The mainstream for the purposes of this article refers to what Ole Waever labels the neo-neo synthesis where during the 1980s, realism became neo-realism and liberalism neoliberal institutionalism. Both underwent a self-limiting redefinition towards anti-metaphysical, theoretical minimalism, and they became thereby increasingly compatible... no longer were realism and liberalism 'incommensurable'-on the contrary they shared a 'rationalist' research programme. See Ole Waever, The Rise and Fall of the Interparadigm Debate, in International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, eds., Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 149-85.
6. J. Ann Tickner, You Just Don't Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists International Studies Quarterly 41, no. 4 (December 1997): 611-32
7. V. Spike Peterson, Transgressing Boundaries: Theories of Knowledge, Gender, and International Relations, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 21, no. 2 (June 1992): 183-206.
8. Tickner, You Just Don't Understand, 613
9. Cynthia Weber argues that wherever the feminist body of literature threatens to overflow the boundaries within which the discipline of International Relations has sought to confine it... [the mainstream] works to reimpose these boundaries or invent new ones. See Cynthia Weber, Good Girls, Little Girls, Bad Girls: Male Paranoia in Robert Keohane's Critique of Feminist International Relations, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 23, no. 2 (June 1994): 337-49, 337.
10. Tickner, You Just Don't Understand, 628.
11. Women in privileged positions in international security policy making remain rare (and are often identified primarily by their gender when they do reach those positions), and entire scholarly texts can be found with no reference to women or gender at all.
12. This statistic counts International Security, Security Studies, International Security Review, Issues in International Security, and Security Dialogue as of early 2006. The statistic makes it appear as if the first four journals do a better job on this issue than they do and is unfair to Security Dialogue, which published more than half of the security work which addressed issues of gender. These observations are the result of a personal count and any counting error is mine alone.
13. Jacqui True, Gender Mainstreaming in Global Public Policy, International Feminist Journal of Politics 5, no. 3 (2003): 368-96
14. Jacqui True and Michael Mintrom, Transnational Networks and Policy Diffusion: The Case of Gender Mainstreaming, International Studies Quarterly 45, no. 1 (March 2001): 27-57.
15. Laura Sjoberg and Caron Gentry, Mothers, Monsters, Whores: Women's Violence in Global Politics (London: Zed Books, 2007).
16. Claudia Card, Rape as a Weapon of War, Hypatia 11, no. 4 (Fall 1996): 5-18.
17. Cynthia Enloe, Does Khaki Become You? The Militarisation of Women's Lives (Boston: South End Press, 1983). see also Megan MacKenzie and Sandra McEvoy's articles in this special issue.
18. Concerning Iraq, see Judy El-Bushra, Feminism, Gender, and Women's Peace Activism, Development and Change 38, no. 1 (January 2007): 131-47
19. generally, see Alice Cook and Gwyn Kirk, Greenham Women Everywhere: Dreams, Ideas, and Actions from the Women's Peace Movement (London: Pluto Press, 1983).
20. See Dyan Mazurana, International Peacekeeping Operations: To Neglect Gender is to Risk Peacekeeping Failure, in The Postwar Moment: Militaries, Masculinities and International Peacekeeping, eds., Dubravka Zarkov and Cynthia Cockburn (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 2002)
21. Dyan Mazurana, Angela Raven-Roberts, and Jane Parpart, ed., Gender, Conflict, and Peacekeeping (Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005).
22. See Nira Yuval-Davis, and Pnina Werbner, ed., Women, Citizenship, and Difference (London: Zed Books, 2006)
23. Doreen Indra, Gender: A Key Dimension of the Refugee Experience, Refugee 6, no. 3 (1987).
24. See Jean Bethke Elshtain, Just War Theory: Readings in Social and Political Theory (New York: New York University Press, 1992)
25. Judith Gardam and Hilary Charlesworth, Protection of Women in Armed Conflict, Human Rights Quarterly 22, no. 1 (February 2000): 148-66
26. Laura Sjoberg, Gender, Justice, and the Wars in Iraq (New York: Lexington Books, 2006)
27. Laura Sjoberg, The Gendered Realities of the Immunity Principle: Why Gender Analysis Needs Feminism, International Studies Quarterly 50, no. 4 (December 2006): 889-910.
28. Peterson, Transgressing Boundaries, 197.
29. V. Spike Peterson and Anne Sisson Runyan, Global Gender Issues (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999), 21.
30. V. Spike Peterson and Anne Sisson Runyan, Global Gender Issues (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999), 2.
31. Jill Steans, Gender and International Relations: An Introduction (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1998), 5.
32. Lauren Wilcox, Gendering the 'Cult of the Offensive,' in Gender and International Security: Feminist Approaches, ed. Laura Sjoberg (New York: Routledge, forthcoming).
33. Wilcox, Gendering the 'Cult of the Offensive'.
34. Sjoberg and Gentry, Mothers, Monsters, Whores, 16.
35. R. W. Connell, Masculinities (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1995)
36. J. K. Gibson-Graham, 'Stuffed if I Know!' Reflections on Post-Modern Feminist Social Research, Gender, Place, and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 1, no. 2 (September 1994): 205-44.
37. Peterson, Transgressing Boundaries, 205.
38. A detailed description of typologies of feminist theories can be found in Ann Tickner and Laura Sjoberg, Feminism, in International Relations Theories, eds., Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, 2nd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming).
39. See, for discussion, Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, Lessons from Lakatos, in Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, eds., Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003).
40. Most typologies leave out a feminist/realist approach from their list of types of feminist theories. Still, several feminists have suggested that the research programs have potentially fruitful commonalities- for example, Sandra Whitworth, Gender and the Interparadigm Debate, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 18, no. 2 (June 1989): 265-72
41. Laura Sjoberg, Feminism and Realism, Strategy in (Apparently) Gender-Emancipatory Policies, paper presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Chicago, Illinois, 28 February-3 March 2007
42. Jacqui True, Feminism and Realism, paper presented at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, San Francisco, CA, 26-29 March 2008.
43. For example, liberal feminists have tested the relationship between woman-inclusive policies at the domestic level and a state's violence internationally, arguing that states will be less violent if and when women are integrated into their structures. See Mary Caprioli and Mark Boyer, Gender, Violence, and International Crisis, Journal of Conflict Resolution 45, no. 4 (August 2001): 503-18.
44. Critical feminism builds on the work of Robert Cox, studying the interacting forces of material conditions, ideas, and institutions, committed to understanding the world in order to change it. See Sandra Whitworth, Feminism and International Relations (London: MacMillan, 1994)
45. Christine Chin, In Service and Servitude: Foreign Female Domestic Workers and the Malaysian Modernity Project (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998).
46. See Elisabeth Prugl, The Global Construction of Gender (New York: Columbia, 1999).
47. See Charlotte Hooper, Manly States: Masculinities, International Relations, and Gender Politics (New York: Columbia, 2001).
48. See Chandra Mohanty, Under Western Eyes, in Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism, eds., Chandra Mohanty, Anne Russo, and Lourdes Torres (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1991), 51-80
49. Geeta Chowdhry and Sheila Nair, ed., Power, Postcolonialism, and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender, and Class (New York: Routledge, 2002).
50. See Maria Mies and Vandana Shiva, Ecofeminism (London: Zed Books, 1993)
51. Karen Warren, ed. Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, Nature (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1997).
52. R. Charli Carpenter, Gender Theories in World Politics: Contributions of a Nonfeminist Standpoint? International Studies Review 4, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 153-65, 153.
53. R. Charli Carpenter, Gender Theories in World Politics: Contributions of a Nonfeminist Standpoint? International Studies Review 4, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 155.
54. R. Charli Carpenter, Gender Theories in World Politics: Contributions of a Nonfeminist Standpoint? International Studies Review 4, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 155.
55. Marysia Zalewski, Well, What is the Feminist Perspective on Bosnia? International Affairs 71, no. 2 (April 1995): 339-56.
56. Helen Kinsella, For a Careful Reading: The Conservativism of Gender Constructivism, International Studies Review 5, no. 2 (June 2003): 287-302.
57. Wilcox, Gendering the Cult of the Offensive.
58. Feminists have argued that Carpenter's approach to studying gender from a non-feminist perspective relies on failing to interrogate the naturalness of sex, making it fundamentally at odds with feminist approaches whose work is built on a critique of the assumed immutability of the male/female dichotomy. Lauren Wilcox makes this argument most articulately in a yet-unpublished manuscript, What Difference Gender Makes: Ontologies of Gender and Dualism in IR.
59. R. Charli Carpenter, Women, Children, and Other Vulnerable Groups: Gender, Strategic Frames, and the Protection of Civilians as a Transnational Issue, International Studies Quarterly 49, no. 2 (June 2005): 295-355
60. R. Charli Carpenter, Innocent Women and Children: Gender, Norms, and the Protection of Civilians (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006)
61. Laura Sjoberg, The Gendered Realities of the Immunity Principle
62. Helen Kinsella, Securing the Civilian: Sex and Gender in the Laws of War, in Power in Global Governance, eds., Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 249-72
63. Lauren Wilcox, What Difference Gender Makes.
64. Carpenter, Women, Children, and Other Vulnerable Groups.
65. Marysia Zalewski explains the problem as an issue of not paying attention to existing theorizing, asserting that to suggest that one might make scholarly inquiries about woman or man through gender that do not engage the abundance of existing theoretical analyses runs the risk of saying nothing at all. Zalewski's concern is that (when it is not about feminism) entirely ignoring a canon of literature decades in the making is generally a losing method for theoretical development. See Marysia Zalewski, 'Women's Troubles' Again in IR, International Studies Review 5, no. 2 (June 2003): 287-302.
66. Carpenter, Women, Children, and Other Vulnerable Groups.
67. Sjoberg, The Gendered Reality of the Immunity Principle, 900.
68. Carpenter, Women, Children, and Other Vulnerable Groups, 296.
69. Sjoberg, The Gendered Realities of the Immunity Principle, 902.
70. Kinsella, Securing the Civilian, 289.
71. Terrell Carver, Gender/Feminism/IR, International Studies Review 5, no. 2 (June 2003): 287-302.
72. V. Spike Peterson and Jacqui True, New Times and New Conversations, in The Man Question in International Relations, eds., M. Zalewski and J. Parpart (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998)
73. Many feminists critique the implicit naturalness of the categories of male and female that are often used to label both sex and gender. See, for example, V. Spike Peterson, Sexing Political Identities/Nationalism as Heterosexism, International Feminist Journal of Politics 1, no. 1 (November 1999): 34-65, 38.
74. Wilcox, Gendering the Cult of the Offensive.
75. Brooke Ackerly, Maria Stern, and Jacqui True, ed., Feminist Methodologies for International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 5.
76. Naomi Scheman, Engenderings: Constructions of Knowledge, Authority, and Privilege (New York and London: Routledge, 1993)
77. Sandra Harding, Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1998)
78. Mary Hawkesworth, Knowers, Knowing, Known: Feminist Theory and Claims of Truth, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 14, no. 3 (Spring 1989): 533-57.
79. Mary Maynard and June Purvis, ed., Researching Women's Lives from a Feminist Perspective (London: Taylor and Francis, 1994)
80. Anne Marie Goetz, Feminism and the Claim to Know: Contradictions in Feminist Approaches to Women in Development, in Gender and International Relations, eds., Rebecca Grant and Kathleen Newland (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1991)
81. Evelyn Fox Keller, Reflections on Gender and Science (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985).
82. The idea that knowledge is interested comes from Jurgen Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1972).
83. Sjoberg, Gender, Justice, and the Wars in Iraq, 39.
84. J. Ann Tickner, Feminism Meets International Relations: Some Methodological Issues, in Feminist Methodologies for International Relations, 41.
85. Christine Sylvester, Feminist International Relations: An Unfinished Journey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 275
86. J. Ann Tickner, Gendering World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001).
87. Jill Steans, Gender in International Relations (London: Routledge, 1998), 29.
88. J. Ann Tickner, Gender and International Relations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992)
89. see also Sarah Brown, Feminism, International Theory, and International Relations of Gender Inequality, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 17, no. 3 (December 1988): 461-75.
90. This commitment is inherent in feminisms for two main reasons. First, feminists are critical of the personal/political divide that obscures the suffering of many marginalized people in global politics. See Jean Elshtain, Reflections on War and Political Discourse: Realism, Just War, and Feminism in a Nuclear Age, Political Theory 13, no. 1 (February 1985): 39-57. Instead, Cynthia Enloe explains that the personal is international and the international is personal.
91. See Cynthia Enloe, Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990).
92. Second, feminists observe the oppression of women, and thus have a concept of the material and ideational properties of subjugation which, if not universal in quantity/quality, can and should inspire empathy. See Fiona Robinson, Globalizing Care: Ethics, Feminist Theory, and International Relations (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999), 31
93. Marianne H. Marchand and Anne Sisson Runyan, ed., Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites, and Resistances (London and New York: Routledge, 2000).
94. J. Ann Tickner, Continuing the Conversation, International Studies Quarterly 42, no. 3 (September 1998): 205-10
95. Tickner, Feminism Meets International Relations.
96. Steans, Gender and International Relations.
97. Sjoberg, Gender, Justice, and the Wars in Iraq.
98. J. Ann Tickner, What is Your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to International Relations Methodological Questions, International Studies Quarterly 49, no. 1 (March 2005): 1-27.
99. Mary Hawkesworth, Feminist IR Theory and Quantitative Methodology: A Critical Analysis, International Studies Review 6, no. 2 (June 2004): 253-69.
100. Sally Haslanger, On Being Objective and Objectified, in A Mind of One's Own: Feminist Articles in Reason and Objectivity, eds., Louis M. Anthony and Charlotte Witt (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2002).
101. Ackerly, Stern, and True, Feminist Methodologies, 5.
102. Tickner, You Just Don't Understand, 621.
103. Shulamit Reinharz, Feminist Methods in Social Research (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 248.
104. Tickner, You Just Don't Understand, 621.
105. Alexander Wendt, On Constitution and Causation in International Relations, Review of International Studies 24, no. 1 (January 1998), 101-22.
106. Alexander Wendt, On Constitution and Causation in International Relations, Review of International Studies 24, no. 1 (January 1998) 104.
107. Alexander Wendt, On Constitution and Causation in International Relations, Review of International Studies 24, no. 1 (January 1998) 105.
108. Alexander Wendt, On Constitution and Causation in International Relations, Review of International Studies 24, no. 1 (January 1998), 105. As such, Wendt argues, the answers to constitutive questions must support a counterfactual claim of necessity, namely that in the absence of the structures to which we are appealing the properties in question would not exist.
109. Alexander Wendt, On Constitution and Causation in International Relations, Review of International Studies 24, no. 1 (January 1998), 105-106.
110. Still, the counterfactual proof for constitutive claims is different than that for causal claims, it is conceptual or logical, not causal or natural. Alexander Wendt, On Constitution and Causation in International Relations, Review of International Studies 24, no. 1 (January 1998), 106.
111. Alexander Wendt, On Constitution and Causation in International Relations, Review of International Studies 24, no. 1 (January 1998) 105.
112. Birgit Locher and Elisabeth Prugl, Feminism and Constructivism: Worlds Apart or Sharing the Middle Ground? International Studies Quarterly 45, no. 1: (March 2001): 111-29.
113. Birgit Locher and Elisabeth Prugl, Feminism and Constructivism: Worlds Apart or Sharing the Middle Ground? International Studies Quarterly 45, no. 1: (March 2001): 116.
114. Tickner, Gendering World Politics (London: Routledge, 1996).
115. Peterson, Gendered States (London: Routledge, 1996).
116. J. J. Pettman, Worlding Women: A Feminist International Politics (London: Routledge, 1996).
117. Jacqui True, Feminism, in Theories of International Relations, eds., Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater (London: Macmillian, 1996), 229-30.
118. See also Susan B. Boyd, ed. Challenging the Public/Private Divide (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997).
119. True, Feminism.
120. See also John Hoffman, Gender and Sovereignty: Feminism, the State, and International Relations (London: MacMillan, 2001).
121. Tickner, Gendering World Politics, 51
122. Nira Yuval-Davis, Gender and Nation (London: Sage, 1997).
123. Ackerly, Stern, and True, Feminist Methodologies for International Relations
124. Christine Sylvester, Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994)
125. Tickner, Gender in International Relations.
126. Carol Cohn, Sex and Death in the World of Rational Defense Intellectuals, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 12, no. 4 (Summer 1987): 687-718.
127. Sjoberg, Gender, Justice, and the Wars in Iraq.
128. Sandra Whitworth, Men, Militarism, and Peacekeeping (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004).
129. For example Cynthia Enloe, Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women's Lives (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000).
130. Galia Golan, Militarization and Gender: The Israeli Experience, Women's Studies International Forum 20, no. 5/6 (September-December 1997): 581-86.
131. For in-depth coverage of the gendered dimensions of the Israel/Palestine conflict, see Simona Sharoni, Gender and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The Politics of Women's Resistance (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1994).
132. Golan, Militarization and Gender, 581.
133. Golan, Militarization and Gender, 581.
134. Golan, Militarization and Gender, 582. Additionally, it is easier for women to get an exemption from service, women serve far less time, women complete a shorter basic training, and women do virtually no reserve duty (while men are obligated to the reserves for thirty years). The result is that even this military, which conscripts women, is male-dominated, both in absolute numbers and in terms of positions of power.
135. Golan, Militarization and Gender, 583.
136. Golan, Militarization and Gender, 585-86.
137. See for example, Card, Rape as a Weapon of War, 5
138. Anne Barstow, ed. War's Dirty Secret: Rape, Prostitution, and Other Crimes Against Women (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 2000)
139. Caroline O. N. Moser and Fiona C. Clark, ed., Victims, Perpetrators, or Actors? Gender, Armed Conflict, and Political Violence (New York: Zed Books, 2001)
140. Cynthia Enloe, The Morning After: Sexual Politics at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1993).
141. Enloe, The Morning After
142. Steans, Gender and International Relations.
143. Lene Hansen, Gender, Nation, Rape: Bosnia and the Construction of Security, International Feminist Journal of Politics 3, no. 1 (April 2001): 55-75
144. Gardam and Charlesworth, Protection of Women in Armed Conflict.
145. Peterson and Runyan, Global Gender Issues, 127.
146. Hansen, Gender, Rape, and Nation, 59.
147. Tickner, Gender in International Relations.
148. Enloe, Maneuvers.
149. Katherine Moon, Sex Among Allies: Militarized Prostitution in US-South Korea Relations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997).
150. Katherine Moon, Sex Among Allies: Militarized Prostitution in US-South Korea Relations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997) 113.
151. Katherine Moon, Sex Among Allies: Militarized Prostitution in US-South Korea Relations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997) 190.
152. Charlotte Hooper, Masculinist Practices and Gender Politics: The Operation of Multiple Masculinities in International Relations, in The 'Man' Question, 31.
153. Hooper, Manly States
154. Connell, Masculinities.
155. Hooper, Manly States, 48.
156. See V. Spike Peterson, A Critical Rewriting of Global Political Economy (New York: Routledge, 2003)
157. Catherine Hoskyns and Shirin Rai, Recasting the Global Political Economy: Counting Women's Unpaid Work, New Political Economy 12, no. 3 (September 2007): 297-317.
158. Enloe, Maneuvers.
159. See Peterson, Sexing Political Identities
160. Hooper, Manly States.
161. Eric Blanchard, Gender, International Relations, and the Development of Feminist Security Theory, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28, no. 4 (Summer 2003): 1,289-1,313, 1,290.
162. Carol Cohn and Sara Ruddick, A Feminist Ethical Perspective on Weapons of Mass Destruction, in Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction, eds., Steven Lee and Sohail Hashmi (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002), 3.
163. See for example, Gary King, Robert Keohane, and Sidney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994).
164. Robert Keohane, in his 1988 International Studies Association Presidential Address, International Institutions: Two Approaches, described a divide between rationalists and reflectivists.
165. Tickner, Continuing the Conversation.
166. Cynthia Enloe, Margins, Silences, and Bottom Rungs, in International Relations Theory.
167. Tickner, You Just Don't Understand, 611.
168. Peterson, Transgressing Boundaries, 187.
169. Jill Steans, Engaging from the Margins: Feminist Encounters with the Mainstream of International Relations, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 5, no. 3 (August 2003): 428-54.
170. Peterson, Transgressing Boundaries,187.
171. Stephen Walt, The Renaissance of Security Studies, International Studies Quarterly 35, no. 2 (June 1991): 213.
172. Stephen Walt, The Renaissance of Security Studies, International Studies Quarterly 35, no. 2 (June 1991): 213.
173. Keohane, International Relations Theory: Contributions of a Feminist Standpoint
174. Robert Keohane, Beyond Dichotomy: Conversations Between International Relations and Feminist Theory, International Studies Quarterly 42, no. 1 (March 1998): 193-98.
175. Steans, Engaging from the Margins, 445.
176. Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams, Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics and Methods, Mershon International Studies Review 40, no. 2 (October 1996): 247.
177. Brown, Feminism, International Theory.
178. Brown, Feminism, International Theory. 470.
179. Judith Squires and Jutta Weldes. Beyond Being Marginal: Gender and International Relations in Britain, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 9, no. 2 (May 2007): 185-203, 185.
180. Marysia Zalewski, Do We Understand Each Other Yet? Troubling Feminist Encounters With(in) International Relations, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 9, no. 2 (May 2007): 302-12.
181. Tickner, Continuing the Conversation, 207. Tickner notes these difficulties, explaining, in the U.S. at least, where to locate oneself epistemologically or methodologically depends not only on the condition of world politics, the state of knowledge, and the nature of the problem to be investigated, as Keohane claims, but also on deeper issues of disciplinary legitimacy and career risks to which I referred earlier.
182. For example, Tickner, Gender in International Relations
183. Tickner, Gendering World Politics.
184. For example, in Gender in International Relations, Tickner uses a wealth of examples in chapters on security, political economy, and the environment. This constructive engagement strategy (my words, not theirs) was common in early work in feminist IR, including (but not limited to) the work of Spike Peterson, Anne Runyan, Sandra Whitworth, Cynthia Enloe, and Francine D'Amico.
185. Tickner, You Just Don't Understand.
186. For extensive discussion of whether or not feminist IR belongs in the third debate, see Sandra Whitworth, Gender in the Inter-Paradigm Debate
187. Marianne H. Marchand, Different Communities/Different Realities/Different Encounters: A Reply to J. Ann Tickner, International Studies Quarterly 42, no. 1 (March 1998): 199-204.
188. Tickner and Sjoberg, Feminism, 5.
189. Tickner and Sjoberg, Feminism, 6.
190. See Peterson, Transgressing Boundaries
191. Steans, Engaging from the Margins.
192. Tickner and Sjoberg, Feminism, 6.
193. C.A.S.E. Collective, Critical Approaches to Security in Europe: A Networked Manifesto, Security Dialogue 37, no. 4 (December 2006): 443-87.
194. Christine Sylvester, Anatomy of a Footnote, Security Dialogue 38, no. 4 (December 2007): 547-58.
195. Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen, ed., The Quality of Life (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).
196. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report 1994: New Dimensions of Human Security, accessed at http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1994/, 19 October 2008.
197. Tickner, Gendering World Politics, 48.
198. Tickner, Gendering World Politics, 48.
199. Thanh-Dam Truong, Saskia Wieringa, and Amrita Chhachhi, ed., Engendering Human Security (London: Zed Books, 2006), xii.
200. Tickner, Hans Morgenthau's Principles
201. Christine Sylvester, Feminist International Relations in a Postmodern Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
202. Truong, Wieringa, and Chhacchi, Engendering Human Security, xxi
203. Gunhild Hoogensen and Svein Rottem, Gender Identity and the Subject of Security, Security Dialogue 35, no. 2 (June 2004): 155-71
204. Gunhild Hoogensen and Kirsti Stuvoy, Gender, Resistance, and Human Security, Security Dialogue 37, no. 2 (June 2006): 207-28.
205. Roland Paris, Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air? International Security 26, no. 2 (Fall 2001): 87-102.
206. Barry Buzan, What is Human Security? A Reductionist, Idealistic Notion that Adds Little Analytical Value, Security Dialogue 35, no. 3 (September 2004): 369-70.
207. Truong, Wieringa, and Chhacchi, Engendering Human Security, xxv.
208. This term was coined in Bill McSweeney, Identity and Security: Buzan and the Copenhagen School, Review of International Studies 22, no. 1 (January 1996): 86-93.
209. Barry Buzan, People, States, and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1983), 1, 2. This book has been republished (edited, with different subtitles) several times since its original publication. I use this version to chronicle the development of the Copenhagen School.
210. Barry Buzan, People, States, and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1983) 2. This book has been republished (edited, with different subtitles) several times since its original publication. I use this version to chronicle the development of the Copenhagen School.
211. Barry Buzan, People, States, and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1983) 19. This book has been republished (edited, with different subtitles) several times since its original publication. I use this version to chronicle the development of the Copenhagen School.
212. Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder Colorado: Lynne Rienner Press, 1998), 5.
213. Michael C. Williams, Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics, International Studies Quarterly 47, no. 4 (December 2003): 511-31.
214. Securitizing actors are defined by Buzan et al. as someone, or a group, who performs the speech act. This could be governments, individuals, military groups, etc.
215. Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver, Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security (London: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
216. Rita Abrahamson, Blair's Africa: the Politics of Securitization and Fear, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 30, no. 1 (January-March 2005): 55-80
217. See for example, Anna M. Agathangelou and L. H. M. Ling, The House of IR: From Family Power Politics to the Poisies of Worldism, International Studies Review 6, no. 4 (December 2004): 21-50.
218. See Lene Hansen, The Little Mermaid's Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29, no. 2 (June 2000): 285-306
219. Hansen, Gender, Nation, Rape
220. Hoogensen and Rottem, Gender, Identity, and Security.
221. Hansen, The Little Mermaid, 285.
222. Hansen, The Little Mermaid, 286. Here, Hansen is interested in how securitization is consumed-arguing that emotion is necessary to understand how people come to believe something is a security issue.
223. Hansen, The Little Mermaid, 291.
224. Wilcox, Gendering the 'Cult of the Offensive', PG. NO.
225. Wilcox, Gendering the 'Cult of the Offensive' PG. NO.
226. See True, Gender Mainstreaming in Global Public Policy.
227. Hudson, Peacebuilding Through a Gender Lens and the Challenges of Implementation in Rwanda and Côte d'Ivoire, PG. NO.
228. Hudson, Peacebuilding Through a Gender Lens and the Challenges of Implementation in Rwanda and Côte d'Ivoire, PG. NO.
229. Lobasz, Beyond Border Security, PG. NO.