|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
145150
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article draws on two decades of work in feminist security studies, which has argued that gender is necessary, conceptually, for understanding the concepts of war and security; important, empirically, for analyzing causes and predicting outcomes in the field of security; and essential to finding solutions to insecurity in global politics. The work of feminist security studies suggests that one of the most persistent features of the global political arena is gender hierarchy, which plays a role in defining and distributing security. The argument in this article moves from talking about the security of gender to discussing the gendered sources of insecurity across global politics. It then builds on existing work in Feminist Security Studies to suggest a felt, sensed, and experiential notion of the security/insecurity dichotomy as a new way to think about global security (studies). A (feminist) view of “security as felt” could transform the shape of a number of research programs in security studies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
164287
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Debates imitates scholarship, which imitates debate. Using perspectives from both my policy debate career and my research career, this article argues that the enterprise of critique, whether in critical security studies or elsewhere, is always and already failing and failed. It proceeds in four sections. The first section sets up my entry into the problems of/with critique. The second section analyzes the types of dissonances inherent in the production of critical security studies scholarship. The third section theorizes those dissonances as failures – arguing that failure itself is a part of in and of critical security studies. The conclusion discusses where to go from, during, and in a world of failed critique in critical security studies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
087470
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
126696
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article discusses the pedagogical potential of a series of blog posts called "Feminist IR 101," which I wrote and posted on Duck of Minerva (duckofminerva.blogspot.com) over the course of 2010 and 2011. As our students increasingly rely on the internet as a source of not only news but knowledge and opinions, this group of posts looks to reach our student audience (and perhaps even others in the discipline) differently than textbooks or other traditional materials. They were meant to be an introduction to feminist IR in the true sense of the word-what feminist IR is, the vocabulary it uses, how it is useful in analysis, and why it is meaningful to scholars and students of gender and global politics. Their goal is to account for both what a feminist perspective contributes to the study of global politics and why I chose to do my research from that perspective. This short article looks specifically at both the "Feminist IR 101" project and its potential classroom uses, as well as the pedagogical value of blogging feminist IR more generally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
093251
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Routledge, 2010.
|
| Description |
xvii, 284p.
|
| Standard Number |
9780415475464
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 054655 | 355.03300082/SJO 054655 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
104039
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In her recent article, 'Women, the State, and War,' in a special issue of this journal honoring Kenneth Waltz, Jean Elshtain explores the question of what if anything it does to 'put gender in' to analysis of Waltz's three 'images' of International Relations, and determines that gender is not definitive or causal in war theorizing. This article suggests that, while the question is an important and appropriate one to ask, the evidence that Elshtain brings to bear and the tools she uses to answer the question are inadequate to the task and not reflective of the current 'state of the field' of feminist International Relations. Addressing the question of if gender 'alters in significant ways' 'man, the state, and war,' this article provides theoretical and empirical examples from the young but rich field of feminist International Relations to present readers with the substance of feminist claims and the warrants behind feminist arguments. It urges International Relations to decide on the question of the relevance of gender by taking work in the area seriously, and suggests that the discipline might be convinced that acknowledging gender is crucial if scholars engage with the literature that sees 'man, the state, and war' as gendered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
102341
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Santa Barbara, Praeger, 2010.
|
| Description |
ix, 282p.
|
| Standard Number |
9780313391439, hbk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 055788 | 303.66/SJO 055788 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
133562
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Since the beginning of feminist work in International Relations 25 years ago (e.g. Tickner 1988; Brown 1988; Goetz 1988), scholarship that addresses the question of gender and violence in global politics has proliferated, and become increasingly diverse. At once, this is a cause for both celebration and reflection. It is a cause for celebration because the strong international research community interested in these issues demonstrates that gender issues have come a long way from being unrecognisable in IR (Tickner 1992). At the same time, the very proliferation of research that signifies vibrancy is a cause for reflection - what and where is research on gender/violence in IR?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
088708
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
136177
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article weighs in on a debate about the meaning and politics of Feminist Security Studies, arguing that substantive and representational inclusivity is important. It suggests that a politics of openness, understanding, and contextualization in the scholarship of the community is key to promoting a politics of feminist critique and reconstruction in the discipline more broadly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
159252
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
We seek a more accurate review of, and reflection on the gender and international relations (IR) literature than that offered by Reiter. Our evaluation corrects misunderstandings related to key dichotomies (mis)used in analyzing scholarship: sex/gender, positivism/nonpositivism, and epistemology/ontology. It also underscores the comparative strengths and weaknesses of different types of research in order to identify more fruitful possibilities for synthesis. We make the pluralist case that gender and IR research is at its best when it is multimethod, epistemologically pluralist, multisited, and carefully navigates the differences between feminist analyses and large-n statistical studies. The potential payoff of careful, synergistic engagement is worth any risks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
083658
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article re-engages international relations' (IR) longest debates on "where" and "why" global politics happens: the levels-of-analysis debate and the agent-structure debate. It argues for the continuing relevance of the conceptual questions contained in these debates, but critiques the inadequacy of current iterations of those debates in the international relations literature. In it, I introduce to political scientists political geographers' concept of scales and scalar processes to replace levels, agents, and structures. I outline the benefits of such an approach for the substance and method of IR's studies of global politics. I then formalize a scalar approach to global politics in six principles, modeled after Morgenthau's six principles of political realism. The article concludes with suggested directions for a scalar approach to IR, focusing on reformulations of IR's approaches to the study of the War on Terror.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
130909
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article engages with trans-theorizing to show how International Relations (IR) is currently blind to gender diversity, and the conceptual contributions trans-theorizing could make. To do so, it asks what insights trans-theorizing might provide for the study of global politics generally, and for feminist theorizing about gender in global politics specifically. After briefly introducing the terminology of trans-theorizing, the article addresses the potential for (and potential hazards of) an alliance between trans-theorizing and feminist theorizing in IR. The article then discusses several potential contributions of trans-theorizing-including hyper- and in-visibility, liminality, crossing, and disidentification-which provide explanatory leverage for IR. The article concludes with some suggestions for further collaboration between trans-theorizing and (feminist) IR to deepen and widen IR's work on gender specifically, and global politics generally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
086292
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article notes the just war tradition's difficulty adapting to 21st century warfare, its susceptibility to political appropriation, its lack of conceptual clarity, and its blindness to the gender subordination inherent in its theoretical assumptions. Still, just war theory cannot be discarded - it is a 'necessary evil,' due to both its popularity in political discourse and the necessity of having a framework for ethical analysis of war. This article proposes a feminist reinterpretation of just war theory as the revitalization that just war theory needs. It explains this feminist just war theory based on relational autonomy, political marginality, empathy, and care. It introduces some feminist 'standards' for considering the morality of war. After brief applicatory explorations into the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, it concludes by arguing that the added normative strength and explanatory power coming from a feminist perspective is something just war theory sorely needs, now more than ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|