Gender, the State, and War Redux: Feminist international relations across the 'levels of analysis'

International Relations

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 108-134

  Sjoberg, Laura ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Feminism; Gender; Waltz

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955142201     PISSN: 00471178     EISSN: 17412862     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0047117810396990     Document Type: Article

References (221)

1. Jean Bethke Elshtain, 'Women, the State, and War,' International Relations 23(2), 2009, pp. 289-303, 289, 300.
2. Ibid., pp. 290, 300.
3. Ibid., p. 289.
4. She also asks this question a couple of other ways: 'Is gender a definitive or causal factor in international relations beyond those empirical considerations?' (p. 290).
5. 'What new insights, theoretical advances, conceptual categories does "gendering" the state offer?' (p. 289).
6. 'If we were to substitute "woman" for "man" in Waltz's title, do states and wars, as part of an overall explanatory framework, alter substantially?' (p. 290).
7. 'So on the level of the state as an actor in an allegedly "anarchic" realm, what does "putting gender in" do, if anything?' (p. 300).
8. Each of these can be interpreted slightly differently; I chose the version in the text because it is a clear way to organize a serious engagement and response to both Elshtain and the Waltzian work she reads.
9. There are many feminists, perhaps myself among them, who would object to this as a 'measuring stick' for feminist theorizing, either because of feminist critiques of the separation of the levels of analysis
10. e.g. Ann Tickner, Gendering World Politics [New York: Columbia University Press, 2001].
11. Jacqui True, 'Feminism,' in Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklaters [eds], Theories of International Relations [London: MacMillan, 1996], p. 227.
12. doubts about the fruitfulness of conversations between feminist IR and 'mainstream' IR.
13. Marysia Zalewski, 'Do We Understand Each Other Yet? Troubling Feminist Encounters With[in] International Relations,' British Journal of Politics and International Relations 9, 2007, pp. 302-12.
14. or epistemological critiques of the causal or positive reasoning required to make the sort of arguments that relating gender directly to the 'levels of analysis' requires (e.g. Maria Stern and Marysia Zalewski, 'Feminist Fatigues: Reflections on Feminisms and Familiar Fables of Militarization,' Review of International Studies 35, 2009, pp. 611-30.
15. Elshtain's reference to Rebecca Grant and Kathleen Newland (eds), Gender and International Relations (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1991) was the most recent citation to gender-based scholarship in her article ostensibly evaluating the field, which she also claims experience with by her attendance at a 1988 conference at the University of Southern California on 'Gender and IR'.
16. While this work was pioneering and foundational, it served as a starting point for a much more extensive and complex research program (now 20 years old) in feminist IR which often addresses the problems Elshtain raised.
17. This is not to say that there are not debates within feminist IR. Here, though, I am more interested in the contributions of (diverse) feminist perspectives to the specific debates with/in IR that Elshtain discusses.
18. Elshtain, 'Women, the State, and War,' p. 300.
19. Elshtain, 'Women, the State, and War,' p. 290.
20. In Elshtain's article, the feminist literature is discussed without a particular distinction between feminist IR and gender studies more generally.
21. Ibid., p. 292.
22. While, in the late 1980s, such an understanding of the differences amongfeminist approaches was more accurate, a number of more nuanced approaches to theuniversalist-relativist debate have since been articulated, including post-colonial work.
23. Geeta Chowdhry and Sheila Nair, Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender, and Class [New York: Routledge, 2002].
24. Work emphasizing multi-sited theorizing (e.g. Brooke A. Ackerly, Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001].
25. work emphasizing empathy (e.g. Christine Sylvester, Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994].
26. and standpoint-based understandings (e.g. Sandra Harding, Is Science Multicultural? [Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1998].
27. Ibid., p. 293.
28. Ibid., p. 292.
29. Ibid., pp. 289, 290.
30. Ibid., p. 289.
31. Grant and Newland, Gender and International Relations, p. 5.
32. citing Sandra Harding, 'Introduction: Is There a Feminist Methodology,' in Sandra Harding (ed.), Feminism and Methodology (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1987), p. 6.
33. J. Ann Tickner, Gender in International Relations (New York, Columbia University Press, 1992), p. 7,
34. citing Joan Scott, Gender and the Politics of History (New York, Columbia University Press, 1988), p. 42.
35. For post-structuralist approaches, see Charlotte Hooper, Manly States (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000.
36. Laura J. Shepherd, Gender, Violence, and Security (London: Zed Books, 2008).
37. For socio-biological work, see Anne Fausto-Sterling, 'Bare Bones of Sex: Part 1, Sex and Gender,' Signs: A Journal of Women in Society and Culture 20(2), 1995, pp. 1491-528.
38. For constructivist work, see, for example, Elisabeth Prugl, The Global Construction of Gender (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999).
39. While I do not directly address this in the text here for the purposes of parsimony, it is important to note the existence of (at least) one more sex category: persons who are 'intersex,' born neither biologically male nor female, which some scientists note accounts for up to one percent of the population.
40. Laura Sjoberg, 'Introduction to Security Studies: Feminist Contributions,' Security Studies 18(2), 2009, pp. 183-213, 186.
41. The most coherent statement of this understanding of gender that I have read is LaurenWilcox's (in 'Gendering the Cult of the Offensive,' Security Studies 18[2], 2009, pp.214-40.
42. Wilcox explains, in relevant part: 'gender symbolism describes the way in which masculine/feminine are assigned to various dichotomies that organized Western thought' where 'both men and women tend to place a higher value on the term which is associated with masculinity.'
43. Marysia Zalewski, 'Well, What is the Feminist Perspective on Bosnia?' International Affairs 71(2), April 1995, pp. 339-56.
44. V. Spike Peterson and Anne Sisson Runyan, Global Gender Issues, 1st edn (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991), p. 2.
45. See also Jill Steans, Gender and International Relations: An Introduction (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1998), p. 5.
46. This means that feminist scholarship shares a common purpose, though there are many different ways to advance that purpose, methodologically, epistemologically, and even ontologically. Feminist IR (like all other 'paradigms' of IR) also has some normative, methodological, epistemological, and even ontological commonalities with other schools of thought. This article focuses on the unique elements that feminist approaches have in common as the most parsimonious way to address Elshtain's question of whether gender analysis 'alters in significant ways' the levels of analysis.
47. Sarah Brown called feminist scholarship 'fundamentally a political act of commitment to understanding the world from the perspective of the socially subjugated' (in 'Feminism, International Theory, and International Relations of Gender Inequality,' Millennium: Journal of International Studies 17[3], 1988, pp. 461-75, 472).
48. Ann Tickner evinced a similar understanding, explaining that feminist IR scholars have a political commitment to illuminate the world from the point of view of marginalized people or actors (in Gendering World Politics).
49. Brooke Ackerly and Jacqui True have explained feminism as an attempt to make IR better at global justice (in 'Studying the Struggles and Wishes of the Age: Feminist Theoretical Methodology and Feminist Theoretical Methods,' in Brooke Ackerly, Maria Stern, andJacqui True [eds], Feminist Methodologies for International Relations [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006], pp. 245-26).
50. Defined by Cynthia Enloe as 'the structural and ideological system that perpetuates theprivileging of masculinity,' where 'patriarchal systems are notable for marginalizing the feminine.
51. That is, insofar as any society or group in the world is patriarchal, it is there that it is comfortable - unquestioned - to infantilize, ignore, trivialize, or even actively cast scorn upon what is thought the be feminized' (in The Curious Feminist: Searching for Women in a New Age of Empire [Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2004], pp. 4, 5).
52. Enloe, The Curious Feminist, p. 6.
53. Wilcox, 'Gendering the Cult of the Offensive.'
54. Citation to author's work omitted to protect the anonymity of the author.
55. Elshtain, 'Women, the State, and War,' pp. 300, 289.
56. Elshtain claims to find this connotation gender-neutral, despite the fact that most leaders in the world have been and remain men. Most feminist scholars find that the use of the masculine term is no coincidence, and not only because most influential figures in 'high' politics have been men, but also because Morgenthau and Waltz's vision of human nature is one that feminists would characterize as partial, and privileging masculinity.
57. see e.g. Tickner, Gender in International Relations.
58. For the purposes of this article, though, I have decided to focus on the content rather than the language of these discussions, for the purpose of brevity and coherence.
59. Elshtain, 'Women, the State, and War,' p. 296.
60. Elshtain, however, does not discuss the fact that Niebuhr and Augustine ignore gender while using gendered constructions and content, while Freud holds a very similar foundationalist notion of gender to the one that Elshtain understands as 'not determinative' in international politics.
61. Ibid., p. 296.
62. This is framed as a quote in Elshtain's article, but there is no source listed, and the author of this article was unable to find what this might be referring to.
63. Ibid., pp. 296-7.
64. I do not think one needs to defend either radical or Marxist feminism to defend feminism in IR, considering that feminism in IR departs from both. Still, it is important to set the record straight. While it is true that radical feminism in the 1970s/1980s did make some of these arguments, Elshtain mischaracterizes them. The argument referred to in that sentence is actually that masculinity as existing under male supremacy is constituted by sexual oppression (and its primary method, rape), rather then that all men are rapists. There was (is) also more to radical feminism, which argues that 'adding women' to the structures of power in business or politics is insufficient, since those institutions are structured in ways that valorize masculinity (even when found in women) and devalue femininity (even when found in men)
65. see e.g. Catherine MacKinnon, Feminism Unmodified: Discourses in Life and Law [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987].
66. Elshtain's treatment of Marxist feminism similarly chooses to focus on some fairly narrow arguments about the former Soviet Union while much of Marxist feminism asked questions about women's over-representation among the world's desperately poor and the gendered distribution of material resources.
67. A good example of this is Annette Kuhn and AnnMarie Wolpe (eds), Feminism and Materialism: Women and Modes of Production (London: Routledge, 1978).
68. Elshtain, 'Women, the State, and War,' p. 297.
69. Ibid, p. 297.
70. It is important to note here that most feminists in IR actually do not make the argument that the world would be a different place if women 'ran it.' Instead, their arguments revolve largely around the relative power of ideas, characteristics, and policy choices associated with masculinity and those ideas, characteristics, and policy choices associated with femininity.
71. See, for example, Linda Basch, 'Human Security, Globalization, and Feminist Visions,' Peace Review 16(1), 2004, pp. 5-12.
72. Heidi Hudson, '"Doing" Security as though Humans Matter: A Feminist Perspective on Gender and the Politics of Human Security,' Security Dialogue 36(2), 2005, pp. 155-74
73. Georgina Waylen, 'Gender, Feminism, and Political Economy,' New Political Economy 2(2), 1997, pp. 205-20.
74. See J. Ann Tickner, 'Hans Morgenthau's Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation,' Millennium: Journal of International Studies 17(3), 1988, pp. 429-40.
75. See Laura Sjoberg and Caron Gentry, Mothers, Monsters, Whores: Women's Violence in Global Politics (London: Zed Books, 2007).
76. See Cynthia Enloe, Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women's Lives (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000).
77. J. Ann Tickner, 'Hans Morgenthau's Principles of Political Realism.'
78. Tickner, Gender in International Relations, p. 37.
79. Christine Sylvester (in Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era, p. 81) argued that gendered views of human nature can be found in the philosophical foundations of modern IR theory as well, whether it be in Hobbes' assignment of state of nature roles on the basis of gender, orMachiavelli's writings on women ruining polities.
80. Tickner, 'Hans Morgenthau's Principles of Political Realism.'
81. Brown, 'Feminism, International Theory, and International Relations of Gender Inequality,' p. 462.
82. Ibid., p. 463.
83. Nancy Hirschmann, 'Freedom, Recognition, and Obligation: A Feminist Approach to Political Theory,' The American Political Science Review 83(4), 1989, pp. 1277-314
84. Christine Sylvester, 'Feminists and Realists on Autonomy and Obligation in International Relations,' in V. Spike Peterson (ed.), Gendered States: Feminist (Re)Visions on International Relations Theory (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1992)
85. Nancy J. Hirschmann, The Subject of Liberty: Towards a Feminist Theory of Freedom (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003).
86. Tickner, in the conclusion to Gender in International Relations.
87. For example, Hilary Charlesworth, 'Are Women Peaceful? Reflections on the Role of Women in Peacebuilding,' Feminist Legal Studies 16(3), 2008, pp. 347-61.
88. This argument was best articulated by Daniel Byman and Kenneth Pollack in 'Let UsNow Praise Great Men: Bring the Statesman Back In,' International Security 25(4), 2000, pp.107-46.
89. Laura Sjoberg and Caron Gentry, Mothers, Monsters, Whores: Women's Violence in Global Politics (London: Zed Books, 2007), pp.199-200.
90. Tickner, Gender in International Relations.
91. Katherine Moon, Sex among Allies: Military Prostitution in US-Korea Relations (New York, Columbia University Press, 1997), p. 52.
92. For example, Kevin J. Ayotte and Mary E. Husain, 'Securing Afghan Women: Neocolonialism, Epistemic Violence, and the Rhetoric of the Veil,' NWSA Journal 17(3), 2005, pp. 112-33
93. Jan Jindy Pettman, 'Feminist International Relations After 9/11,' Brown Journal of World Affairs 10(2), 2004, pp. 85-102.
94. For example, Sandra McEvoy, 'Women Loyalist Paramilitaries in Northern Ireland: Beginning a Feminist Conversation about Conflict Resolution,' Security Studies 18(2), 2009, pp. 262-86
95. Sjoberg and Gentry, Mothers, Monsters, Whores.
96. Cynthia Enloe, Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), p. 196.
97. Moon, Sex among Allies.
98. I do not mean to suggest, of course, that feminists are the only scholars who have recognized that individuals impact the making and fighting of wars
99. see e.g. Byman and Pollack, 'Let Us Now Praise Great Men'
100. or the only scholars who have recognized that marginal individuals' security is either normatively or empirically important
101. see e.g. Johann Galtung and Tord Hoivik, 'Structural and Direct Violence,' Journal of Peace Research 8[1], 1971, pp. 73-6
102. or Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Enzo Faletto, Dependency and Development in Latin America [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979]
103. I mean to suggest instead both that feminists are unique to combine them, and unique in their understanding of the logic that makes the combination impactful for the questions Elshtain is interested in answering.
104. Spike Peterson, 'Gendered Identities, Ideologies and Practices in Contexts of War and Militarism,' in Laura Sjoberg and Sandra Via (eds), Gender, War, and Militarism: Feminist Perspectives (New York: Prager Security International, 2010).
105. Elshtain, 'Women, the State, and War,' p. 300.
106. Ibid., p. 298.
107. Ibid., pp. 299-300.
108. Ibid., p. 300.
109. For example, Mary Caprioli, 'Gendered Conflict,' Journal of Peace Research 37(1), 2000, pp. 51-68
110. Mary Caprioli and Mark A. Boyer, 'Gender, Violence, and International Crisis,' Journal of Conflict Resolution 45(4), 2001, pp. 503-19
111. Valerie M. Hudson, Mary Caprioli, Bonnie Ballif-Spanvill, Rose McDermott, and Chad F. Emmett, 'The Heart of the Matter: The Security of Women and the Security of States,' International Security 33(3), 2009, pp. 7-45.
112. R. W. Connell, Masculinities (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), p. 73.
113. Christine Sylvester, Feminist International Relations in a Postmodern Era, p. 34.
114. Carole Pateman, The Sexual Contract (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988).
115. J. Ann Tickner, 'Feminism Meets International Relations: Some Methodological Issues,' in Ackerly, Stern, and True, Feminist Methodologies for International Relations, pp. 39-40.
116. Susan B. Boyd, Challenging the Public/Private Divide: Feminism, Law, and Public Policy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997).
117. Rebecca Grant sees the historical development of the public-private divide as even more extensive, explaining that 'the emergence of the polis also brought into play a notion of citizenship that relegated women into the private sphere of domestic life,' a trend she sees as continuing its influence in present-day politics
118. in 'Sources of Gender Bias in International Relations Theory,' in Grant and Newland, Gender and International Relations, p. 11).
119. Hilary Charlesworth, Christine Chinkin, and Shelley Wright, 'Feminist Approaches to International Law,' American Journal of International Law 85(4), 1991, p. 626.
120. Amy Eckert, 'Just War Theory and War in the Private Sphere: The Re-Privatization of Force and the Ethics of War,' paper prepared for presentation at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, San Francisco, CA, 26-9 March 2008.
121. Tickner, Gender in International Relations, p. 43.
122. See Leonie Huddy and Nayda Terkildsen, 'The Consequences of Gender Stereotypes for Women Candidates at Different Levels and Types of Office,' Political Research Quarterly 46(3), 1993, pp. 503-25.
123. This does not 'level' the playing field for masculine women, however, as feminists have pointed out that the burden of proof is higher on a woman (who is assumed to be feminine until proven otherwise) than a man (whose masculinity is assumed until it is questioned).
124. See Francine D'Amico and Peter Beckman, Women in World Politics: An Introduction (Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, 1995).
125. R. W. Connell, 'The State, Gender, and Sexual Politics: Theory and Appraisal,' Theoryand Society 41, 1990, pp. 507-44
126. R. Pringle and S. Watson, 'Women's Interests and the Post-Structuralist State,' in Michael Barnett (ed.), Destabilizing Theory (London: Polity Press, 1992)
127. Tickner, Gendering World Politics, p. 54.
128. Tickner, Gender in International Relations, p. 42.
129. Ibid., p. 133.
130. See, for example, Richard K. Ashley, 'Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique,' Millennium: Journal of International Studies 17(2), 1988, pp. 227-62
131. Thomas Biersteker and Cynthia Weber, State Sovereignty as a Social Construct (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
132. Tickner, Gendering World Politics, p. 21.
133. Sjoberg, Gender, Justice, and the Wars in Iraq, pp. 65-6.
134. Eric Blanchard,'Gender, International Relations, and the Development of Feminist Security Theory,' Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28(3), 2003, pp. 1289-313.
135. See, for example, Jeanne Vickers, Women and War (London: Zed Books, 1993)
136. the particulars of this argument can be found in many other feminist works, but are left out here for reasons of space. Others have argued that states' war victories come at the expense of their lower classes or racial minorities as well.
137. Though it will not be discussed here, feminists have put forward a compelling case that the characterization of states as 'rational' implicates feminist critiques of the partiality and insidiousness of reason as gender-subordinating and exclusive of women and minorities.
138. See, for example, Louise M. Antony and Charlotte Witt, A Mind of One's Own: Feminist Essays on Reason and Objectivity, 2nd edn (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2001).
139. Peterson and Runyan, Global Gender Issues, p. 258.
140. Cynthia Enloe, The Morning After: Sexual Politics at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1993), p. 246.
141. Instead, Enloe argued that 'militarization occurs because some people's fears are allowed to be heard, while other people's fears are trivialized and silenced.'
142. Peterson and Runyan, Global Gender Issues, p. 118.
143. Sjoberg, Gender, Justice, and the Wars in Iraq
144. Cynthia Enloe, Does Khaki Become You? The Militarization of Women's Lives (London: Pandora Press, 1989).
145. Joshua Goldstein (in War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001]) points out that this system is oppressive of both sexes, where men need to be convinced of the need to protect women to compel them to fight and risk death, and women are subordinated as passive potential victims in need of protection.
146. Enloe, Bananas, Beaches, and Bases, p. 204.
147. Wilcox, 'Gendering the Cult of the Offensive,' p. 233.
148. Anne McClintock, 'Family Feuds, Gender, Nationalism, and the Family, Feminist Review 44, Summer 1993, p. 62.
149. Nira Yuval-Davis, Gender and Nation (London: Sage, 1997).
150. V. SpiKe Peterson, 'Interactive and Intersectional Analytics of Globalization,' Frontiers: A Journal of Women's Studies 30(1), 2009, pp. 31-40.
151. Elshtain, 'Women, the State, and War,' p. 300.
152. Ibid., p. 300.
153. Ibid., p. 301.
154. Ibid., p. 300.
155. Ibid., p. 302.
156. See Hudson et al., The Heart of the Matter.
157. Nancy Huston, 'Tales of War and Tears of Women,' in Judith Stiehm (ed.), Women and Men's Wars (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1983).
158. Jean Elshtain, Women and War (New York: Basic Books, 1987)
159. as cited in: Laura Sjoberg, 'The Gendered Realities of the Immunity Principle,' International Studies Quarterly 50(4), 2006, pp. 889-910.
160. Huston, 'Tales of War and Tears of Women.'
161. Tickner, Gendering World Politics
162. Laura Sjoberg, 'Why Just War Needs Feminism Now More than Ever,' International Politics 45(1), 2008, pp. 1-18.
163. Helen Kinsella, 'Securing the Civilian: Sex and Gender in the Laws of War,' in Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall (eds), Power in Global Governance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 249-72.
164. Kinsella, 'Securing the Civilian'
165. Sjoberg, 'The Gendered Realities of the Immunity Principle.' 105 Elshtain, Women and War, p. 6.
166. Elshtain, Women and War, p. 6.
167. Enloe, The Morning After.
168. Tickner, Gender in International Relations.
169. Marysia Zalewski, 'Well, What is the Feminist Perspective on Bosnia?' International Affairs 71(2), 1995, pp. 339-56.
170. Sjoberg and Gentry, Mothers, Monsters, Whores.
171. Carol A. Stabile and Deepa Kumar, 'Unveiling Imperialism: Media, Gender, and War in Afghanistan,' Media, Culture, and Society 27(5), 2005, pp. 765-82
172. Krista Hunt, 'The Strategic Co-optation of Women's Rights: Discourse in the "War on Terrorism,"' International Feminist Journal of Politics 4(1), 2002, pp. 116-21.
173. Zillah Eisenstein, Against Empire: Feminisms, Racisms, and the West (London: Zed Books, 2004).
174. Tickner, Gendering World Politics, p. 57
175. Goldstein, War and Gender.
176. For elaborations, see Meghana Nayak and Jennier Suchland, 'Gender Violence and Hegemonic Projects,' International Feminist Journal of Politics 8(4), 2006, pp. 467-85
177. J. Ann Tickner, 'Feminist Responses to International Security Studies,' Peace Review 16(1), 2004, pp. 43-8
178. Enloe, Does Khaki Become You?
179. Claudia Card, 'Rape as a Weapon of War,' Hypatia 11(4), 1996, pp. 5-17.
180. 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(2), 2005, pp. 295-335.
181. Vickers, Women and War.
182. A reviewer pointed out that this sentence could be read two different ways. The way I mean it is that gender inequality is constitutive/determinative of wars. The way it could be read that I do not mean is that gender inequality causes specific wars. This may also be accurate, but is not the focus of this section, which engages 'war'/'the international system' as a level of analysis.
183. Tickner, Gender in International Relations, p. 45.
184. Grant, 'Sources of Gender Bias,' p. 17.
185. Tickner, Gender in International Relations, p. 57.
186. Sylvester, Feminist International Relations in the Postmodern Era, p. 113.
187. True, 'Feminism.'
188. For example, see Peter Gourevitch, 'The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics,' International Organization 32(4), 1978, pp. 889-912.
189. Robert Keohane and Helen Milner, Internationalization and Domestic Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)
190. Byman and Pollack, 'Let Us Now Praise Great Men.'
191. Ibid., p. 229.
192. Steans, Gender and International Relations, p. 6.
193. D'Amico and Beckman, Women in World Politics, p. 5.
194. Enloe, The Curious Feminist, p. 6.
195. Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979), p. 89.
196. Ibid., p. 88.
197. Of course, to Waltz, the decentralized and anarchic structure of international politics does not mean that the structure is weakly causal; in Waltz's view, the weak structure is strongly causal.
198. Or perhaps even visible but not recognized as structural, particularly by those with a vested interest in not recognizing it.
199. Joan Acker, 'Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations,' Gender and Society 4(2), 1990, pp.146-7.
200. For now, a (somewhat reductionist) introductory hypothesis can serve as a placeholder: variation in the existence and severity of military conflict in the international arena can be read through variation in the relative positions of states in the gender hierarchy among states and the salience of position in that hierarchy in defining state identity.
201. Put differently, one of the fundamental problems with anarchy as a structural explanation for war is that it is only a structural explanation and only a permissive cause. Therefore, other causes are necessary to explain why war occurs, when it does, given that sometimes war does not occur, while at others it does. Gender hierarchy as structure could possibly be seen as both a permissive and proximate cause of war, and provide a capacity to account for change.
202. Elshtain, Women, the State, and War, p. 301.
203. This is not to say that some feminist IR work, particularly the only feminist IR work that Elshtain cites, does not present de-gendering IR as a theoretical possibility and/or advocate increasing the visibility of women in global politics; it is only to say that this is but one of many feminist approaches in IR, and represents a minority of feminist scholars in number and a rather early proposition in terms of feminist theoretical development.
204. For example, Peterson and Runyan, Global Gender Issues
205. Steans, Gender and International Relations.
206. For example, Sylvester, Feminist International Relations in the Postmodern Era.
207. For example, Brown, 'Feminism, International Theory, and International Relations of Gender Inequality'
208. Tickner, Gender in International Relations.
209. V. Spike Peterson, 'Transgressing Boundaries: Theories of Knowledge, Gender, and International Relations,' Millennium: Journal of International Studies 21(2), 1992, pp. 183-206.
210. Shepherd, Gender, Violence, and Security
211. Johanna Kantola, 'The Gendered Reproduction of the State in International Relations,' British Journal of Politics and International Relations 9, 2007, pp. 270-83.
212. For example, Tickner, 'Hans Morgenthau's Principles of International Relations'
213. John Hoffman, Gender and Sovereignty (London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2001)
214. Sjoberg, Gender, Justice, and the Wars in Iraq
215. Wilcox, 'Gendering the Cult of the Offensive.'
216. For example, Jacqui True, 'Gender Mainstreaming in Global Public Policy,' International Feminist Journal of Politics 5(3), 2003, pp. 368-96
217. Jacqui True and Michael Mintrom, 'Transnational Networks and Policy Diffusion: The Case of Gender Mainstreaming,' International Studies Quarterly 45(1), 2001, pp. 27-57.
218. For example, Christine Sylvester, Feminist International Relations: An Unfinished Journey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
219. For example, Fiona Robinson, Globalizing Care (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999).
220. For example, Hilary Charlesworth, Christine Chinkin, and Shelley Wright, 'Feminist Approaches to International Law,' American Journal of International Law 85, 1991, p. 613
221. Catherine MacKinnon, Are Women Human? And Other International Dialogues (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006).