Gender Perspective in the Studies of War
Abstract
Feminist studies, first introduced in international relations theory back in the Cold War, established themselves as an independent research field in 1990s. From the onset, feminist studies have been focused on the key concepts and notions of the IR theory, such as ‘state’, ‘power’, ‘security’, and ‘war’. It is exactly the role of gender perspective in the studies of war in the modern context which is the central issue of this paper. The first section examines feminist views on traditional gender roles attributed to women at war: the image of mother, the keeper of the hearth, and the image of victim. The author emphasizes that behind these roles lays a much broader set of issues, which involves legitimization of a particular structure of power relations in society in general. The second section focuses on perceptions of new gender roles of women at war, which include the images of a woman as a soldier and a terrorist, both in the academic discourse and in the media. The author underlines a paradox in this regard: whereas the practice of inter- and intrastate conflicts has already resulted in the entrenchment of the new female gender roles, gender stereotypes continue to dominate both the IR theory and mass consciousness. The author concludes that the issues of war and security will continue to play a crucial role in the development of feminist studies in the IR theory and outlines several promising directions for further research in this area.
About the Author
T. V. Skorospelova
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Tatiana V. Skorospelova — Doctor of Sciences (History), Associate Professor at the School of World Politics
1 Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119991
References
1. Vinogradova S.M. 2010. Gosudarstvo, bezopasnost’, suverenitet: mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya v zerkale feminizma [State, security, sovereignty: International relations in the mirror of feminism]. Politeks, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 53–68. (In Russ.)
2. Vinogradova S.M., Pantserev K.A. 2016. Gendernyi mirovoi poryadok: evolyutsiya ‘feminnosti’i ‘maskulinnosti’ (nekotorye aspekty teorii i praktiki) [Gender world order: The evolution of ‘femininity’ and ‘masculinity’ (some aspects of theory and practice)]. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University, series 6, no. 1, pp. 97–109. (In Russ.)
3. Mitrofanova A.V. 2001. ‘Chelovecheskaya bezopasnost’ — vyzov natsional’nomy suverenitetu? [‘Human security’ — a challenge to national sovereignty?]. Moscow, Diplomaticheskaya akademia MID Rossii Publ., pp. 34–53. (In Russ.)
4. Sergunin A.A. 2003. Rossiiskaya vneshnepoliticheskaya mysl’: problemy mezhdunarodnoi i natsional’noi bezopasnosti [Russian thought in foreign policy: International and national security issues]. Nizhnii Novgorod. (In Russ.)
5. Tikner D.E. 2006. Mirovaya politika s gendernykh pozitsii [World politics from a gender perspective]. Мoscow, Kul’turnaya revolyutsiya Publ. (In Russ.)
6. Torkunov A.V., Mal’gin A.V. 2012. Sovremennye mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [Modern international relations]. Moscow, Aspekt Press Publ. (In Russ.)
7. Tsygankov P.A. 2016. Teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [Theory of international relations]. Moscow, Yurait Publ. (In Russ.)
8. Balasingham A.A. 1993. Women fighters of the Liberation Tigers. Jaffna, ThasanPrinters.
9. Brittain M. 2006. Benevolent invaders, heroic victims and depraved villains: White femininity in media coverage of the invasion of Iraq. In Hunt K., Rygiel K. (eds.). (En)gendering the War on Terror. London, Ashgate, pp. 73–96.
10. Brouneus K. 2008. Truth-telling as talking cure? Insecurity and retraumatization in the Rwandan Gacaca courts. Security Dialogue, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 55–76.
11. Brownmiller S. 1975. Against our will: Men, women and rape. New York, Simon & Schuster.
12. Chang I. 1997. The rape of Nanking: The forgotten Holocaust of World War II. New York, Basic Books.
13. Coomaraswamy R. 1996. Tiger women and the question of women’s emancipation. Pravada, vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 8–10.
14. Elshtain B.J. 1991. Sovereignty, identity, sacrifice. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 395–406.
15. Elshtain B.J. 1987. Women and war. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
16. Code L. (ed.). 2003. Encyclopedia of feminist theories. London, Routledge.
17. Enloe C. 2000. Maneuvers: The international politics of militarizing women’s lives. Berkeley, University of California Press.
18. Farmanfarmaian А. 1998. Did you measure up? The role of race and sexuality in the Gulf War. In Dalby S., Routledge P., Ó Tuathail G. (eds.). The geopolitics reader. London, Routledge, pp. 286–293.
19. Goldstein J.S. 2001. War and gender: How gender shapes the war system and vice versa. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
20. Hansen L. 2000. The little mermaid’s silent security dilemma and the absence of gender in the Copenhagen school. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 285–306.
21. Huston N. 1983. Tales of war and tears of women. In Stiehm J.H. (ed.). Women and men’s wars. Oxford, Pergamon Press, pp. 272–282.
22. Keohane R.O. 1989. International relations theory: Contributions of a feminist standpoint. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 245–253.
23. Logan S. 2006. Remembering the woman in Rwanda: When humans rely on the old concepts of war to resolve conflict. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 234–239.
24. McKay S., Mazurana D.E. 2004. Where are the girls? Girls in fighting forсes in Northern Uganda, Sierre Leone and Mozambique: Their lives during and after war. Montréal, Rights & Democracy.
25. Orford А. 1999. Muscular humanitarianism: Reading the narratives of the new interventionism. European Journal of International Law, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 679–711.
26. Rajasingham-Senanayake D. 2004. Between reality and representation: Women’s agency in war and post-conflict Sri Lanka. Cultural Dynamics, vol. 16, no. 2–3, pp. 141–168.
27. Parashar S. 2010. Women, militancy and security: The South Asian conundrum. In Sjoberg L. (ed.). Gender and international security: Feminist perspectives. London, Routledge, pp. 168–188.
28. Powley E. 2003. Strengthening governance. The role of women in Rwanda’s transition. Washington, D.C., Hunt Alternatives.
29. Sjoberg L. 2007. Agency, militarised femininity and enemy others: Observations from the War in Iraq. International Feminist Journal of Politics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 82–101.
30. Sjoberg L. 2010. Women fighters and the ‘beautiful soul’ narrative. International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 92, no. 877, pp. 53–68.
31. Sjoberg L. 2010. Introduction. In Sjoberg L. (ed.). Gender and international security: Feminist perspectives. London, Routledge, pp. 1–14.
32. Sylvester C. 1994. Feminist theory and international relations in a postmodern era. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
33. Tickner J.A. 1992. Gender in international relations: Feminist approaches on achieving global security. New York, Columbia University Press.
34. Tickner J.A. 1988. Hans Morgenthau’s principles of political realism: A feminist reformulation. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 429–440.
35. Van Evera S. 1998. The cult of the offensive and the origins of the First World War. In Brown M.E. (ed.). Offense, defense and war. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 69–118.
36. Wilcox L. 2010. Gendering the cult of the offensive. In Sjoberg L. (ed.). Gender and international security: Feminist perspectives. London, Routledge, pp. 61–82.
37. Sjoberg L., Gentry C.E. (eds.). 2011. Women, gender and terrorism. Athens, University of Georgia Press.
Review
For citations:
Skorospelova T.V. Gender Perspective in the Studies of War. Lomonosov World Politics Journal. 2019;11(3):77-91. (In Russ.)
Views:
387
Email this article 