Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T12:39:23.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Discussion of Laura sjoberg's Gendering Global Conflict: Toward a Feminist Theory of War

Review products

Gendering Global Conflict: Toward A Feminist Theory of War. By Sjoberg Laura. New York: Columbia University Press. 2013. 461p. $89.50 cloth, $29.50 paper.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2014

Sara Meger
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Charge: War is a defining political experience, and the study of war—its causes, its dynamics, its consequences–is a central theme of political science. It is an organized activity that involves both men and women, as combatants and as civilians, as perpetrators and as victims. Laura Sjoberg's Gendering Global Conflict: Toward a Feminist Theory of War (Columbia University Press, 2013) is an important new book that argues that the fields of international relations and security studies are impoverished by an insufficient attention to the gendering of conflict, and that a “feminist theory of war” is therefore indispensable to an adequate understanding of the politics of war. This symposium brings together a range of prominent political science scholars, writing from a range of theoretical perspectives, to comment critically on Sjoberg's book and on the broader theme of the gendering of global conflict. —Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

Type
Review Symposium: Gender and Politics
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 168 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerly, B., Stern, M., and True, J., eds. 2006. Feminist Methodologies for International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brody, Richard. 2012. “How to Be a Critic.” The New Yorker, August 22. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/08/how-to-be-a-critic.html (October 28, 2013).Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1988. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Freire, Paulo, and Macedo, Donaldo. 1995. “A Dialogue: Culture, Language, and Race.” Harvard Educational Review 65(3): 377–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchings, Kimberley. 2008. “Cognitive Short Cuts.” In Rethinking the Man Question: Sex, Gender, and Violence in International Politics, ed. Zalewski, Marysia and Parpart, Jane. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Kirby, Paul. 2012. “How Is Rape a Weapon of War? Feminist International Relations, modes of critical explanation and the study of wartime sexual violence.” European Journal of International Relations 19(4): 797–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liinason, Mia. 2010. “Institutionalized Knowledge: Notes on the Process of Inclusion and Exclusion in Gender Studies in Sweden.” NORA: Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 18(1): 38–47.Google Scholar
Lobasz, Jennifer and Sjoberg, L., eds. 2011. “Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics: The State and Feminist Security Studies: A Conversation.” Politics & Gender 7(4): 573–604.Google Scholar
Meger, Sara. 2011. “Rape in Contemporary Warfare: The Role of Globalization in Wartime Sexual Violence.” African Conflict and Peacebuilding Review 1(1): 100–32.Google Scholar
Meger, Sara. 2012. Minerals and Masculinity: A New Understanding of Sexual Violence in Conflict from the Case of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Mewburn, Inger. 2010. “The Stegosaurus Strategy.” The Thesis Whisperer . November 1, 2010. http://thesiswhisperer.com/2010/11/01/the-stegosaurus-strategy/ (October 28, 2013).Google Scholar
Risman, B.J. (2004. “Gender as a Social Structure: Theory Wrestling with Activism.” Gender & Society 18(4): 429–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepherd, L. 2008. Gender, Violence and Security: Discourse as Practice. London, Zed Books.Google Scholar
Sjoberg, L. and Via, S., eds.. 2010. Gender, War, and Militarism: Feminist Perspectives. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
Sutton, Robert I. 2007. The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t. New York: Business Plus.Google Scholar
Tickner, J. Ann. 1992. Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Tiedens, Larissa. N.d. “Anger and Advancement versus Sadness and Subjugation: The Effect of Negative Emotion Expressions on Social Status Conferral.” Research Paper No. 1615, Stanford University Graduate School of Business Research Paper Series. https://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/library/rp1615.pdf (October 30, 2013).Google Scholar
True, Jacqui. 1998. “Feminism.” In Theories of International Relations, ed. Burchill, Scott and Linklater, Andrew. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
True, Jacqui. 2012. The Political Economy of Violence Against Women. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth. 1959. Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Boston: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar