Implications For Understanding Security Through Gender: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Literature Concerning Women Who Wield Political Violence and Women in State Militaries
Author
Christensen, Kathrine Bjerg
Term
4. term
Publication year
2013
Submitted on
2013-05-31
Pages
75
Abstract
Mange antager, at kvinder er omsorgsgivere, og at mænd er beskyttere. Alligevel har kvinder gennem historien deltaget direkte i væbnet konflikt. Forskere i international politik (IR, studiet af global politik) har forsøgt at forklare dette, og især feministisk IR hævder, at krig, konflikt og sikkerhed er formet af kønnede normer—altså sociale forventninger til kvinder og mænd—inden for bredere magthierarkier, som ofte placerer kvinder i underordnede positioner. Disse feministiske perspektiver har skabt debat med mere konventionelle IR-tilgange, særligt om hvorvidt køn skal forstås som en årsag til kvinders voldsdeltagelse eller mest som et symptom på dybere sikkerhedsdynamikker. Dette projekt giver et kritisk overblik over to forskningsfelter: studier af kvinder, der deltager i vold (WWPV), og studier af kvinder i militæret (WSM). Gennemgangen omfatter 20 artikler fra flere discipliner og suppleres af interviews med tre eksperter i køn, krig og sikkerhed. Målet er at identificere ligheder og forskelle i, hvordan felterne forklarer kvinders deltagelse i vold, og hvad det betyder for forståelsen af sikkerhed. Sammenligningen indgår i en bredere debat om krig og sikkerhed i lyset af fremkomsten af ikke-statslige væbnede grupper, der udfordrer statscentrerede sikkerhedsforståelser. Analysen viser, at begge litteraturer producerer nogle af de samme fortællinger. Et markant eksempel er moderskab, som anvendes til at forklare kvinders involvering og som forklaring på den ubehag, det skaber for samfund, mænd og ikke-statslige organisationer, når kvinder deltager i vold. Samtidig er der forskelle: WSM-studier fokuserer ofte på kvinders fysiske formåen og på, om inklusion gavner både kvinderne og militæret som institution, mens WWPV-studier i mindre grad diskuterer fysisk formåen og i højere grad betoner, hvordan kønnede magthierarkier begrænser de roller, kvinder og mænd kan udfylde. Gennemgangen peger også på forskelle i, hvem der producerer forskningen. Arbejder om WSM er mere kønsbalancerede og omfatter ikke-feministiske forskere, mens WWPV-litteraturen i dette materiale er skrevet af kvinder, der anlægger kønsbevidste og/eller feministiske perspektiver. Overordnet gør forskellige akademiske paradigmer—særligt mellem feministiske og ikke-feministiske forskere—det vanskeligt at nå en samlet, sammenhængende forståelse af sikkerhed. Alligevel er der en fælles konklusion: Bevidsthed om køn er afgørende for at forstå sikkerhed, også uden et fuldt ud feministisk udgangspunkt.
Many people assume women are caregivers and men are protectors. Yet women have long taken part directly in armed conflict. Scholars in International Relations (IR, the study of global politics) have tried to explain this, and feminist IR in particular argues that war, conflict, and security are shaped by gendered norms—that is, social expectations about women and men—within broader power hierarchies that often place women in subordinate positions. These feminist perspectives have sparked debate with more conventional IR approaches, especially over whether gender should be seen as a cause of women’s involvement in violence or mainly a symptom of deeper security dynamics. This project offers a critical review of two bodies of research: work on women who participate in violence (WWPV) and work on women in militaries (WSM). The review covers 20 articles from multiple disciplines and is complemented by interviews with three experts on gender, war, and security. The goal is to identify similarities and differences in how these fields explain women’s participation in violence and what this means for how we understand security. This comparison sits within a wider debate about war and security in light of the rise of non-state armed groups that challenge state-centered ideas of security. The analysis finds that both literatures reproduce some of the same narratives. A prominent example is motherhood, used to explain women’s involvement and to account for the discomfort it creates for societies, men, and non-state organizations when women engage in violence. At the same time, there are differences: WSM studies often focus on women’s physical abilities and whether including women benefits both the women and the military as an institution, whereas WWPV studies discuss physical ability less and instead emphasize how gendered power hierarchies restrict the roles available to women and men. The review also notes differences in who produces the research. Work on WSM is more gender-balanced and includes non-feminist scholars, while the WWPV literature in this sample is authored by women who adopt gender-aware and/or feminist perspectives. Overall, divergent academic paradigms—especially between feminist and non-feminist scholars—make it hard to reach a single, coherent understanding of security. Nonetheless, both groups converge on one point: awareness of gender is essential to understanding security, even without a fully feminist framework.
[This abstract was generated with the help of AI]
Keywords
Documents