Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 6 - Women of the Twenty Years’ Crisis: The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom and the Problem of Collective Security

  • from Part II - Outsiders
  • Edited by Patricia Owens, University of Oxford, Katharina Rietzler, University of Sussex
  • Book:
    Women's International Thought: A New History
    Published online:
    07 January 2021
    Print publication:
    07 January 2021, pp 136-157

  • Summary

    This chapter analyses four women intellectuals and activists in the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF). In the 1930s, Emily Greene Balch, Helena Swanwick, Vera Brittain and Mary Agnes Hamilton were public intellectuals, with a stake in the concrete policy debates of their time, which revolved around the questions of collective security and appeasement. Balch and Swanwick opposed collective security and embraced a pacifist position, while Hamilton and Brittain supported it. They all strategically invoked their gender, based on the intellectual traditions of suffragism and feminist pacifism that countered masculinist IR discourses. Though there was certainly no unanimity among them, they ‘turned an earlier misogynistic tradition on its head,’ by making a claim on representing ‘women’s perspectives’ on international politics. Their contribution to the academic debate on collective security was vital in its time. Yet, in the end, it was written out of IR’s intellectual history.