Skip to main content

Feminism and the Question of Security

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Feminist Perspectives on Terrorism
  • 990 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter the author attempts to show the feminist interpretation of various phenomena proper to security studies. She seeks to demonstrate that the presentation of security issues in political science is still dominated by the so-called male skew, which perceives the history of political violence as being “his,” not “her” story. The chapter highlights this issue by referring to armed conflicts and the problem of the resexualization of violence. Women are excluded, overlooked, and/or relegated to the role of passive security objects, most often as victims in this narrative. In criticizing this approach, the author calls for the use of the feminist lens. She also demonstrates gender specificity in the analysis of the security issues—and particularly of threats. She assumes than it can contribute to the development of studies on security and on political violence and thus, to increase the resilience of the state.

Security is a chimera

Greer (1970, p. 341)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Pedwell (2010). For the situation of women in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, see Moghadam (2005).

  2. 2.

    United Nations (1991). For contemporary statistics see the website of the United Nations High-Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), http://unhcr.gov. Accessed on 2 April 2018.

  3. 3.

    “To make sense of today’s complex world, we need to understand that many decisions have not only gendered consequences but gendered causes—that is, causes flowing form presumptions or fears about femininity or masculinity” (Enloe 2007, p. 17).

References

  • Abu-Lughod, L. (2002). Do Muslim women really need saving? Anthropological reflections on cultural relativism and its others. American Anthropologist, 104(3), 783–790.

    Google Scholar 

  • Addams, J., Balch, E. G., & Hamilton, A. (1916). Women at the Hague: The international congress of women and its results. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aggestam, K., Bergman-Rosamond, A., & Kronsell, A. (2019). Theorizing feminist foreign policy. International Relations, 33(1), 23–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alison, M. (2004). Women as agents of political violence: Gendering security. Security Dialogue, 35(4), 437–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alpern, S. B. (1998). Amazons of Black Sparta: The women warriors of Dahomey. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anthias, F., & Yuval-Davis, N. (1989). Introduction. In N. Yuval-Davis & F. Anthias (Eds.), J. Campling (consultant ed.), Woman—nation—state (pp. 1–15). London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 291–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. (2002). Polityka (L. Piotrowicz, Trans. and Ed., K. Grzybowski, Foreword). Warsaw: De Agostini/Altaya.

    Google Scholar 

  • Askin, K. D. (1999). Sexual violence in decisions and indictments of the Yugoslav and Rwandan tribunals: Current status. The American Journal of International Law, 93(1), 97–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachofen, J. J. (1897). Das Mutterrecht: Eine Untersuchung über die Gynaikokratie der alten Welt nach ihrer religiösen und rechtlichen Natur (2nd ed.). Basel: Schwabe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Englewood Cliffs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (Eds.). (1994). Human aggression (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basow, S. A. (1992). Gender stereotypes and roles. Pacific Grove: Books/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • bell hooks [Watkins. G.]. (2013). Teoria feministyczna: od marginesu do centrum (E. Majewska, Trans.) (pp. 34–39). Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Krytyki Politycznej [Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, Pluto Press, 2nd edition, London 2000].

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, M. T., & Guidroz, K. (Eds.). (2009). The intersectional approach: Transforming the academy trough race, class and gender. Durgam, NC: University of North Carolina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettencourt, B. A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation. A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119(3), 422–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleier, R. (1984). Science and gender: A critique of biology and its theories on women. New York: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock-Utne, B. (1985). Educating for peace: A feminist perspective. New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will, men, women and rape. New York: Simon & Shuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownmiller, S. (1982). Wewnętrzny wróg. In T. Hołówka (Ed.), Nikt nie rodzi się kobietą (Selection, translation and introduction T. Hołówka) (p. 284). Warsaw: Czytelnik [fragment of “The Enemy Within”, in S. Stambler, ed., Women’s liberation blueprint for the future, Ace: New York 1970].

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulbeck, C. (1998). Re-orienting western feminisms: Women’s diversity in a postcolonial world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burguieres, M. K. (1990). Feminist approaches to peace: Another step for peace studies. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 19(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R. F. (1996). Mission to Gelele, King of Dahomey. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chant, S. (2008). The ‘feminization of poverty’ and the ‘feminization’ of anti-poverty programmes: Room for revision. Journal of Development Studies, 44(2), 165–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chowdhry, G., & Nair, S. (Eds.). (2002). Power, postcolonialism and international relations: Reading race, gender and class. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn, C. (2004). The continuum of violence: A gender perspective on war and peace. In W. Giles & J. Hyndman (Eds.), Sites of violence: Gender and conflict zones (pp. 24–44). Los Angeles: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Code, L. (1991). What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czaputowicz, J. (2012). Bezpieczeństwo międzynarodowe. Współczesne koncepcje. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Amico, F. (1998). Feminist perspectives on women warriors. In L. A. Lorentzen & J. Turpin (Eds.), The women and war reader (pp. 119–125). New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dabbs, J. M., & Morris, R. (1990). Testosterone, social class and antisocial behaviour in a sample of 4,462 men. Psychological Science, 1(3), 209–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Pauw, L. G. (1998). Battle cries and lullabies: Women in war from prehistory to the present. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, J. (1980). La carte postale de Socrate à Freud et au-delà. Paris: Flammarion.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, A. (1974). Woman hating. New York: Plume.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 309–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elshtain, J. B. (1987). Women and war. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engels, F. (1886). Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigentums und des Staates. Im Anschluss an L. H. Morgan’s Forschungen (2nd ed.). Stuttgart: J. H. W. Dietz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enloe, C. (1983). Does khaki become you? The militarization of women’s lives. Boston: South End Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enloe, C. (2007). Globalization & militarism: Feminists make the link. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk, R., Kim, S. S., Mendlovitz, S. H., & Mcnemar, D. (1991). The United Nations and a just world order. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1984). L’usage des plaisirs. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frodi, A., Macaulay, J., & Thome, P. R. (1977). Are women always less aggressive than men? A review of the experimental literature. Psychological Bulletin, 84(4), 634–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasztold, A. (2017). A feminist approach to security studies. Przegląd Politologiczny, 3, 179–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasztold, A. (2018). Studia nad bezpieczeństwem w ujęciu feministycznym. Studia Politologiczne, 47, 316–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. (1995). Moral orientation and moral development. In V. Held (Ed.), Justice and care: Essential readings in feminist ethics (pp. 31–46). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J. S. (2001). War and gender: How gender shapes the war system and vice versa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greer, G. (1970). The female eunuch. New York: Bantam Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1986). The science questions in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayden, R. M. (2000). Rape and rape avoidance in ethno-national conflicts: Sexual violence in liminalized states. American Anthropologist, 102(1), 27–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hekman, S. J. (1990). Gender and knowledge: Elements of the postmodern feminism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hołówka, T. (1982). Intorduction. In T. Hołówka (Ed.), Nikt nie rodzi Kobietą się (Selection, translation and introduction T. Hołówka) (pp. 5–21). Warsaw: Czytelnik.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humm, M. (1993). Słownik teorii feminizmu (B. Umińska & J. Mikos, Trans.). Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyży, E. (2003). Kobieta, ciało, tożsamość: teorie podmiotu w filozofii feministycznej końca XX wieku. Cracow: Universitas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. (1996). Does the ‘gender’ make the world go round? Feminist critiques of international relations. Review of International Studies, 22(4), 405–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. (2006). Genocide: A comprehensive introduction. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange, L. (2003). Woman is not a rational animal: On Aristotle’s biology of reproduction. In S. Harding & M. B. Hintikka (Eds.), Discovering reality feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science (2nd ed., pp. 1–15). Boston: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsitz Bem, S. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lolber, J. (1992). In S. A. Farrell (Ed.), The social construction of gender. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomba, A. (2005). Colonializm/postcolonialism. London: Routledge (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Majchrzyk, Z. (2009). Kiedy kobieta zabija: motywy, osobowość, relacja sprawca-ofiara, strategie obronne. Opinia sądowo-psychologiczna stanu silnego wzburzenia. Warszawa: Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malinowska, E. (Ed.). (2011). Społeczne konteksty i dylematy realizacji ról płciowych. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, A., & Booth, A. (1998). Testosterone and dominance in men. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21(3), 353–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, J. (2010). Beginning postcolonialism. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, M. (1949). Male and female: A study of the sexes in a changing world. New York: William Morrow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millett, K. (2005). Theory of sexual politics. In A. E. Cudd & R. O. Andreasen (Eds.), Feminist theory: A philosophical anthology (pp. 37–59). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miluska, J. (1995). Przeksztatłcenia ról płciowych a szanse kobiet. In J. Miluska & E. Pakszys (Eds.), Humanistyka i Płeć I: Studia kobiece z psychologii, filozofii i historii (pp. 19–38). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, J. (1974). Psychoanalysis and feminism. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moghadam, V. M. (2005). Peacebuilding and reconstruction with women: Reflections on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine. Development, 48(3), 63–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moghissi, H. (1991). Feminism and Islamic fundamentalism: The limits of postmodern analysis. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon, K. (1997). Sex among allies: Military prostitution in US-Korea relations. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. Screen, 16(3), 6–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Münkler, H. (2002). Die neuen Kriege. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • No authors. (2002, May). Licence to rape: The Burmese military regime’s use of sexual violence the ongoing war in Shan state. Chiang Mai: The Shan Human Rights Foundation, The Shan Women’s Action Network.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, M. (2018). Gender agency in war & peace—Gender justice and women’s activism in post-conflict Bosnia-Herzegovina. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortner, S. B. (1974). Is female to male as ‘nature’ to ‘culture’? In M. Z. Rosaldo & L. Lamphere (Eds.), Women, culture and society (pp. 68–87). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pakszys, E. (1995). Płeć a rozwój nauki; problemy epistemologii feministycznej. In J. Miluska & E. Pakszys (Eds.), Studia kobiece z psychologii, filozofii i historii (pp. 85–98). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peach, L. J. (1993). Women at war: The ethics of women in combat. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedwell, C. (2010). Feminism, culture and embodied practice: The rhetorics of comparison. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, V. S., & Runyan, A. S. (1999). Global gender issues (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westviev.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettman, J. J. (1996). Worlding women: A feminist international politics. London: Routledge (e book 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, M., & Werchick, L. (2004, March 18). Sexual terrorism: Rape as a weapon of war in eastern democratic Republic of Congo—An assessment of programmatic responses to sexual violence in North Kivu, South Kivu, Maniema, and Oriental Provinces. January 9–16, 2004 (USAID/DCHA Assessment Report). Retrieved April 2, 2018, from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnadk346.pdf

  • Prügl, E. (1999). The global construction of gender: Home-based work in the political economy of the 20th century. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Razack, S. H. (2008). Casting out. The eviction of Muslims from western law & politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reardon, B. (1985). Sexism and the war system. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich, A. C. (1990). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Societies, 5(4), 631–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. (2011). Retrieved November 8, 2018, from https://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/EA9AEFF7-5752-4F84-BE94-0A655EB30E16/0/Rome_Statute_English.pdf

  • Różalska, A. M. (2016). Feministki postkolonialne wobec wojny z terroryzmem po 11 września 2001 roku. In I. Desparak & I. Kuźma (Eds.), Kobiety niepokorne: reformatorki – buntowniczki – rewolucjonistki (pp. 139–150). Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruddick, S. (1980). Maternal thinking. Feminist Studies, 6(2), 342–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruddick, S. (1989). Maternal thinking: Toward a politics of peace. New York: Ballantine Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruddick, S. (1998). ‘Woman of peace’. A feminist construction. In L. A. Lorentzen & J. Turpin (Eds.), The women and war reader (pp. 216–223). New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schechter, S. (1982). Women and male violence: The visions and struggles of battered women’s movement. Boston: South End Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifert, R. (1994). War and rape: A preliminary analysis. In A. Stiglmayer (Ed.), Mass rape: The war against women in Bosnia-Herzegovina (pp. 54–72). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, L. J. (2010). Feminist security studies. In R. A. Denemark (Ed.), The international studies encyclopaedia. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell/Blackwell Reference Online.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skjelsbæk, I. (1997). Gendered battlefields: A gender analysis of peace and conflict. PRIO Report 6/1997. Oslo: International Peace Research Institute (PRIO). Retrieved June 7, 2017, from https://www.prio.org/utility/DownloadFile.ashx?id=478&type=publicationfile

  • Skjelsbæk, I. (2006). Victim and survivor: Narrated social identities of women who experienced rape during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Feminism & Psychology, 16(4), 373–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solanas, V. (1968). SCUM manifesto. New York: Olympia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiehm, J. (1983). Women and men’s war. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stump, J. L., & Dixit, P. (2013). Critical terrorism studies: An introduction to research methods. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sylvester, C. (1994). Feminist theory and international relations in a postmodern era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, V., & Rupp, L. J. (1993, Autumn). Women’s culture and lesbian feminist activism: A reconsideration of cultural feminism. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Societies, 19(1), 32–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tickner, J. A. (1997a). You just don’t understand: Troubled engagements between feminists and IR theorists. International Studies Quarterly, 41(4), 611–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tickner, J. A. (1997b). Re-visioning security. In K. Booth & S. Smith (Eds.), International relations theory today (pp. 175–197). Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tickner, J. A., & Sjoberg, L. (2007). Feminism. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki, & P. Smith (Eds.), International relations theories: Discipline and diversity (pp. 185–202). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiger, L. (1969). Men in groups. London: Nelson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tripp, A. M. (2002). Challenges in transnational feminist mobilization. In M. Marx-Ferree & A. M. Tripp (Eds.), Global feminism: Transnational women’s activism, organizing and human rights (pp. 296–312). New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1991). The world’s women: Trends and statistics 1970–1990. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2017). The feminization of poverty, UN women. New York. Retrieved April 3, 2017, from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/followup/session/presskit/fs1.htm

  • Van Vugt, M., De Cremer, D., & Janssen, D. P. (2007). Gender differences in cooperation and competition: The male-warrior hypothesis. Psychological Science, 18(1), 19–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walt, S. M. (1991). The renaissance of security studies. International Studies Quarterly, 35(2), 219–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wharton, A. P. (2007). The sociology of gender: An introduction to theory and research. Oxford: Willey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitworth, S. (2005). Militarized masculinities and the politics of peacekeeping. In K. Booth (Ed.), Critical security studies and world politics (pp. 89–109). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wibben, A. T. R. (2011). Feminist security studies: A narrative approach. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (2003). The logic of masculinist protection: Reflections on the current security state. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 29(1), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuval-Davis, N. (1997). Gender and nation. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gasztold, A. (2020). Feminism and the Question of Security. In: Feminist Perspectives on Terrorism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37234-7_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics