The ‘Duel’ Meaning of Feminisation in International Relations: The Rise of Women and the Interior Logics of Declinist Literature
In: Global Responsibility to ProtectSearch for other papers by Caron E. Gentry in
Current site
Google Scholar
‘Feminisation’ in International Relations refers to multiple, and sometimes contradictory, concepts. Much of the time it refers to the incorporation of women into various organisations and institutions, such as women’s participation in militaries or in politics. The decline of violence, or declinist, literature lists it as one of the contributing factors in the decline of violence and associates feminisation with women’s social, political, and economic empowerment. Feminist theory in ir, however, conceptualises ‘feminisation’ in a different light. As the feminine is often devalued or deprioritised for the preferred masculine, feminisation is synonymous with devalourisation. 1 Therefore, this paper will play with the dual meaning of feminisation, offering a cautionary tale for the dependency on women’s empowerment in the declinist literature by asserting that it is hampered by masculinist thinking. It will do so by challenging the equation of women with gender in the declinist literature. Gender equality and/or progress cannot simply be limited to raising women’s status, which implicates an understanding of gender as a binary categorisation of men/masculinity or women/femininity. Instead, gender is a spectrum that understands the multitude of gender identities, going beyond heteronormativity to lesbian, bi-, gay, trans, queer, and intersex (lbgtqi). Limiting gender to women means violences against other communities, particularly sexual minorities, is unrecognised and unaccounted for.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
3
Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: The Decline of Violence in History and Its Causes (London: Penguin, 2011).
-
4
Joshua S. Goldstein, Winning the War on War: The Decline of Armed Conflict Worldwide (London: Penguin, 2011).
-
6
Mary Kaldor, New and Old Wars: Organised Violence in a Global Era (London: Polity, 1999).
-
7
Francis Fukuyama, ‘Women and the Evolution of World Politics’, Foreign Affairs, 77/5 (1998).
-
10
Jacqui True, ‘Winning the Battle but Losing the War on Violence’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 17/4 (2015): pp. 554–572.
-
11
John Gray, ‘Steven Pinker is Wrong About Violence and War’, The Guardian, 13 March 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-steven-pinker-wrong-violence-war-declining accessed 16 September 2015.
-
12
Lucas Grindley, ‘We Saw the Backlash Coming, But Have You Really Notice All of It?’, The Advocate, 1 April 2016, http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2016/4/01/we-saw-backlash-coming-have-you-really-noticed-all-it accessed 17 May 2016.
-
13
Dipesh Chakrabarty, ‘Provincialising Europe: Postcoloniality and the Critique of History’, Cultural Studies, 6/3 (1992); Dipesh Chakrabarty, Provincialising Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference (Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press 2000).
-
24
Pinker, Better Angels, 684–689; see also True, ‘Winning the Battle’.
-
38
Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, ‘The Hillary Doctrine’, Newsweek, 6 March 2011, http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-doctrine-66105, accessed 24 February 2016.
-
41
Susan Willett, ‘Introduction: Security Council Resolution 1325: Assessing the Impact on Women, Peace, and Security’, International Peacekeeping, 17/2 (2010), p. 143.
-
43
Laura Sjoberg, Gendering Global Conflict: Toward a Feminist Theory of War (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013).
-
44
Emma Griffiths, Medea (London: Taylor and Francis, 2006): pp. 7–8.
-
48
Terrell Carver, Gender is not a Synonym for Women (Boulder: Lynne Reinner, 1996).
-
49
J. Ann Tickner, ‘Why Women Can’t Rule the World: International Politics According to Francis Fukuyama’, International Studies Review, 1/3 (1999); True, ‘Winning the Battle’.
-
50
Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992): p. xiii.
-
53
Caron E. Gentry, ‘Epistemological Failures: Everyday Terrorism in the West’, Critical Studies on Terrorism, 8/3 (2015): pp. 362–382.
-
59
Gurminder K. Bhamba, ‘Historical Sociology, Modernity, and Postcolonial Critique’, The American Historical Review 116(3) (2011): 653–662, p. 653.
-
63
Meaghan Morris, ‘Metamorphoses at Sydney Tower’, New Formations, 11 (1990) as cited in Chakrabarty, Provincialising Europe, p. 39.
-
65
Makau W. Mutua, ‘Savages, Victims, and Saviours: The Metaphor of Human Rights’, Harvard International Law Journal, 42/1 (2001): pp. 201–245.
-
76
Sydney Calkin, ‘“Tapping” Women for Post-Crisis Capitalism: Evidience from the 2012 World Development Report’, Internatinal Feminist Journal of Politics, 17/4 (2015): p. 612.
-
87
J. Ann Tickner, Gender and International Relations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992): Chapter 2.
-
101
Adam Withnall, ‘What Are the Worst Places in the World to Be Gay?’ The Independent, 25 February 2014, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/and-you-thought-uganda-was-bad-map-shows-where-in-the-world-it-is-worst-to-be-gay-9152558.html accessed 26 February 2016.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 825 | 130 | 18 |
| Full Text Views | 363 | 15 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 182 | 30 | 2 |
The ‘Duel’ Meaning of Feminisation in International Relations: The Rise of Women and the Interior Logics of Declinist Literature
In: Global Responsibility to ProtectSearch for other papers by Caron E. Gentry in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
‘Feminisation’ in International Relations refers to multiple, and sometimes contradictory, concepts. Much of the time it refers to the incorporation of women into various organisations and institutions, such as women’s participation in militaries or in politics. The decline of violence, or declinist, literature lists it as one of the contributing factors in the decline of violence and associates feminisation with women’s social, political, and economic empowerment. Feminist theory in ir, however, conceptualises ‘feminisation’ in a different light. As the feminine is often devalued or deprioritised for the preferred masculine, feminisation is synonymous with devalourisation. 1 Therefore, this paper will play with the dual meaning of feminisation, offering a cautionary tale for the dependency on women’s empowerment in the declinist literature by asserting that it is hampered by masculinist thinking. It will do so by challenging the equation of women with gender in the declinist literature. Gender equality and/or progress cannot simply be limited to raising women’s status, which implicates an understanding of gender as a binary categorisation of men/masculinity or women/femininity. Instead, gender is a spectrum that understands the multitude of gender identities, going beyond heteronormativity to lesbian, bi-, gay, trans, queer, and intersex (lbgtqi). Limiting gender to women means violences against other communities, particularly sexual minorities, is unrecognised and unaccounted for.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 825 | 130 | 18 |
| Full Text Views | 363 | 15 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 182 | 30 | 2 |
