Gender and Conflict, Chapter 2, 2017, PDF

The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Conflict Fionnuala Ní Aoláin (ed.) et al. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199300983.001.0001 Published: 2017 Online ISBN: 9780190862251 Print ISBN: 9780199300983...

The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Conflict Fionnuala Ní Aoláin (ed.) et al. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199300983.001.0001 Published: 2017 Online ISBN: 9780190862251 Print ISBN: 9780199300983 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28341/chapter/215129472 by Boston College user on 24 January 2024 CHAPTER 2 From Women and War to Gender and Con ict? Feminist Trajectories  Dubravka Zarkov https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199300983.013.3 Pages 17–34 Published: 06 December 2017 Abstract This chapter charts a brief history of the conceptual tools used to understand gender relations with respect to wars and armed con icts. The chapter begins by summarizing some of the dominant theories of second wave feminism, including radical feminism, liberal feminism, black, lesbian and Third World feminism. It explores critiques of feminist theory, as well as the roles of equality and agency in feminist studies on women and war, the tensions between Western feminism and feminism outside of the West, and the impact of a constructivist analytical lens on feminist scholarship. It depicts how speci c violent con icts in uenced feminist thinking in the 1990s and the early 2000s, tracing a genealogy from genocide in Rwanda and the war in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to 9/11 and the War on Terror. Keywords: feminism, second wave feminism, radical feminism, Yugoslavia, Third World feminism, War on Terror, constructivism Subject: Comparative Politics, Political Theory, Politics Series: Oxford Handbooks Collection: Oxford Handbooks Online THIS chapter addresses the following questions: What is “gender,” and what does it mean in relation to wars and armed con icts? Answering these questions requires venturing into a brief history of the concept, looking at what conceptual tools existed before “gender” and what came along after it. The chapter then speci cally re ects on how the trajectories of feminist thinking about issues we today subsume under “gender” have been related to feminist theorizing of violent con icts and wars. The chapter assesses trajectories of thinking about gender and war within speci c streams of second wave Western feminist theorizing from the late 1960s to the second decade of the twenty- rst century. As a starting point, it is worth noting that feminist conceptualizations of women’s and men’s lives and feminist theorizing of violence, including war, have in uenced each other quite substantially, and both have  been in uenced by a number of di erent feminist political projects. Thus, writing a brief genealogy of concepts and their trajectories necessarily tells us something about the social and political moments within which the concepts make sense. But looking back into the histories of concepts means reconstructing the past from the perspective of the present. Thus, this brief history is not impartial, complete, or exhaustive. Rather, like all histories, it is a view from a very particular present, here and now, from within which emphasis is placed on some feminist perspectives and analyses of women’s lives in general and in relation to mass violence, because they are theoretically and politically pertinent for and beyond feminism. Woman, Women: Asserting Global Sisterhood Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28341/chapter/215129472 by Boston College user on 24 January 2024 p. 18 Second wave feminism in the West emerged in the late 1960s with the tide of new social movements that included the anti-(Vietnam) war and civil rights movements, as well as anti-colonial movements in Africa and Asia. If the rst wave of feminism (of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries) was characterized by the struggles for formal, political, and economic rights (such as voting and property rights), the second wave was marked by bringing the hitherto private into the public (particularly issues of sexuality and violence, be it as reproductive rights or as marital rape) and by pushing for anti- discrimination legislation in all social sectors, from labor protection to divorce laws. From the start of the second wave, there were clear and often irreconcilable di erences in feminist theorizing of social relations of power and the origins of women’s oppression, and consequently, in their political projects. Indeed, radical feminism and liberal feminism are of particular relevance for feminist studies of war. Radical feminists believed that male dominance is rooted in male control over and exploitation of women’s bodies and sexuality (Rubin 1975). This belief is linked to an (rather essentialist) assumption shared by many radical feminists that nature and biology matter, disadvantaging women physically, though potentially empowering them sexually and advantaging them ethically. Motherhood is seen as both central to women’s enslavement by men within patriarchy and as a quintessential point of women’s life-a rming ethics, thus as a ground for women’s politics of nonviolence and peace (Ruddick 1980, 1989). Lesbian love is celebrated as a political, rather than just a sexual, choice (Rich 1976). In the vernacular of much radical feminism, men are often reduced to violent sexual predators, so male sexual violence against women and pornography become their main focus (Dworkin 1981). Liberal feminism rejects nature and biology as having anything to do with women’s oppression and points instead to male bias, ignorance, and prejudice. Taking liberal trust in free, rational individualism within the context of capitalism as its starting point, it is concerned with formal, legal equality between women and men, focusing its interventions on institutions such as the state, the law, and the market, which are assumed to be un-gendered, impartial guarantors of equality. It sees its task as re-educating both women and men: the former to gain enough autonomy and empowerment to claim equal rights, the latter to gain enough insights to stop being obstacles to women’s equality (Baehr 2004; Nussbaum and Glove 1995; West 1998). While radical feminism often called for women’s separatism, liberal feminism called for the integration of women in all domains of social, economic, and political life, but without attention to the preexisting structures and practices of inequality. Despite huge disagreements in explanations of the origins of women’s oppression and the strategies for intervention, however, much of second wave feminism in the West shared a number of assumptions and p. 19 concepts, in particular taking “patriarchy” and sexual di erence between women and men as central to feminist analysis, starting from “woman” as a uni ed and xed analytical category, embedded in the structures of patriarchy on the opposite power-end of the equally xed and uni ed category of “man.” Probably the most important assumption—in terms of theoretical and political implications—was that of global sisterhood: that all women are oppressed; that all are oppressed in the same way; and that all women are oppressed by all men. This implies that all women also adhere to the same political struggle and, ultimately, that all women understand and support each other. This simpli ed oppositional imagination was challenged within and outside the West throughout the 1970s and 1980s, especially by black, lesbian, and Third World feminists. They problematized the universality of white, upper-class, heterosexual women’s experience and brought in race, nationality, citizenship, class, heterosexuality, and religion as crucial analytical categories and power relations, stressing the importance of particular social, cultural, and political histories within which these categories and power relations were produced. Third World feminist critiques (DAWN 1987; Moya 1997) noted that histories of colonialism, slavery, orientalism, and imperialism also mark Western feminist (i.e., not just mainstream) theoretical and Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28341/chapter/215129472 by Boston College user on 24 January 2024 political perspectives, and that women of the Third World invariably appear in Western feminist scholarship as a xed, homogenous category de ned through multiple victimizations (Mohanty 1984; Sen and Grown 1987). Postcolonial feminism throughout the 1990s continued with similar critiques of ethnocentrism and persistent representations of the Third World woman’s subjectivity through victimhood (Alexander and Mohanty 1997; Rajan 1993). Black and (black-) lesbian feminists rejected unconditional sisterhood, postulating that di erences between women are as important as those between women and men. They argued that not all women are oppressed, certainly not in the same way, and certainly not only, or primarily, by men, stressing that women often partake in and bene t from the oppressive systems—through racism, heteronormativity, and colonialism—even when they are not the direct oppressors of other women and men (hooks 1981). Importantly, this criticism implied that not all women share the same political struggle, nor do they automatically understand and support each other; female solidarity must be built, not assumed. While this argument meant that women are not natural allies, it also meant that men are not women’s natural enemies. Black, working-class, colonized, and marginalized men—those feminists argued—are closer to sharing the lives and struggles of black, working-class women and women from peripheries than are the rich women from the Western metropolis. Those views opened up possibilities for the subsequent development of “rainbow politics” and “transversal feminism,” transnational and decolonial feminist alliances that reach beyond particular identity politics to address intersecting structures and histories of oppression, spread across geopolitical spaces and di erent social justice movements, and o er broad platforms for resistance and mobilization (Alexander and Mohanty 1997; Yuval-Davis 1999). Equally signi cant, men’s lives and masculinities became an important focus of feminist research (see Dolan, Chapter 7 in this volume). p. 20 Gender and Intersectionality: Reflecting on Di erences That Matter Parallel with and following those criticisms, several important theoretical developments arose among Western feminists in the late 1980s: Joan W. Scott (1986) gave the concept of gender new analytical strength; Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989) deployed the concept of intersectionality; and debates in feminist epistemology brought up questions about sexual di erence, identity politics, and women’s experience. In a broader eld of social science, and especially within the various streams of social justice movements and their theorizing, constructivism gained power, opening further theoretical and political horizons in feminism. Joan W. Scott’s groundbreaking work criticized the feminist focus on patriarchy for relying upon Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28341/chapter/215129472 by Boston College user on 24 January 2024 binary opposition (women/men), focusing on sexual di erence, and seeing it as xed and ahistorical. She also criticized mainstream feminism for ignoring other systems of social organization such as race, class, and sexuality; Marxist feminism for ignoring non-material aspects of social exclusion such as psyche, identity formation, symbolic systems, and sexual politics; and poststructuralist feminists for staying too much within the microcosm of interpersonal and family relationships, ignoring political and economic structures. But her lasting legacy is in establishing the concept of gender as a crucial feminist analytical category. Three speci c aspects of Scott’s concept of gender are worth mentioning here. First, while Scott is not the rst to use this concept, she elaborated its theoretical strengths, when compared to the concept of “women.” She distinguished between gender as a social relation of power (i.e., an organizing principle of social life) and gender as an analytical category. As an organizing principle of social life, gender operates on several interrelated levels: from individual and group identities to normative/ideological, institutional, and symbolic meanings. As an analytical category, gender allows feminists to look beyond individual women—and, Scott argued, to include men! Gender asks how ideas about manhood and womanhood in uence identities, norms, institutions, and symbols. Turning the noun into the verb allows us to see how each of these are gendered (i.e., informed by speci c notions and practices of femininities and masculinities). In establishing a distinction between “women” and “gender” as analytical tools, Scott argued that the latter can do what the former cannot: o er insight into the processes of production and institutionalization of social relations of power, thereby exposing their material underpinnings and implications, as well as ideological and symbolic systems through which those processes are legitimized, maintained, or opposed. Second, Scott argued that gender does not operate in a social vacuum, but in and through other social relations of power, such as race, class, religion, and sexuality. Even if, for feminists, gender remains a primary analytical tool, Scott argued, its working cannot be understood without understanding other power p. 21 relationships within, through, or against which gender works. Finally, she insisted on historically and socially contextualized analyses of gender, stressing that gendered actors and relationships are always time and place speci c. This attention to the context and the manifold power through which gender operates has also been central to Kimberlé Crenshaw’s (1989) concept of intersectionality (see Rooney, Chapter 25 in this volume). Scott’s and Crenshaw’s interventions questioned the very basics of feminism as an epistemological project. “If we are not justi ed in taking women as a category, then what political grounding does feminism have?” asked Elizabeth Grosz (1990, 341). If there is no uniform “women’s reality” and “women’s experience,” can there be “women’s subject position,” “women’s perspective,” and “women’s knowledge?” If being a woman does not bring epistemic privilege, what does? Those questions are simultaneously theoretical and political, and their implications for feminism are impossible to overstate. Gender and intersectionality, as feminist conceptual tools that stress politics of location, plurality, partiality, and the situatedness of feminist knowledge, rather than sexual di erence and identity, demanded radically di erent worldviews and political strategies.  But, by the end of the 1990s and the start of the new millennium, both gender and intersectionality as concepts were criticized for exactly the opposite: for depoliticizing feminist theoretical and political struggles. Ironically, the failure of those concepts to generate social and theoretical transformations seems to have resulted from feminist successes in the late 1970s and through the 1980s. The 1980s was a decade of “femocrats,” the time of feminist entry into various—including the highest—national and international bureaucracies. As a result of global feminist struggles, anti-discrimination laws and women’s rights—from sexual and reproductive rights to rights to development—were put on agendas, not just in the West, but all over the world. The term “gender” spread beyond feminism and academia into national and supranational institutions such as the European Commission and the United Nations (Braidotti 2002), where a distinct Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28341/chapter/215129472 by Boston College user on 24 January 2024 eld of “gender policies” was created. National governments around the world were opening ministries for women; the United Nations produced a series of conventions and resolutions, funds, conferences, and organizations speci cally for women’s issues and proclaimed the rst decade of the woman (1976–1985). The World Bank followed suit with funding and projects for women only. In addition, from modest starts, universities in the United States and Western Europe started creating complete women’s and gender studies departments and research centers with budgets and institutional support. Latin America, Asia, and Africa followed suit from the mid- to late 1980s, with Eastern European universities joining in the 1990s (Chen 2004). However, the entry of “gender” into these domains does not mean it has entered on the same footing with other concerns of those entities. Women’s and gender studies, for example, remain to a large extent “speci c” elds of knowledge, deemed inconsequential to the presumably universal knowledge of mainstream science. In this, they share the fate of black studies, indigenous studies, ethnic studies, or any other knowledge eld that grew out of the new social movements in the 1960s and the desire of hitherto marginalized social groups to produce knowledge about, for, and by themselves. p. 22 Moreover, some argue that the result of the institutionalization and integration of women and gender issues into academia and national and supranational governing bodies was isolation, a loss of radical edge, the creation of technical “gender expertise” without feminist politics, and in the worst case, co-option (Crawford and Fox 2007; Stratigaki 2004). So, for example, “gender mainstreaming,” once acclaimed as a feminist tool that would transform discriminatory government practices against women, has been critiqued as “gender away-streaming”—a tool that enabled the integration of women into the existing unequal power relationships and thus contributed to women’s renewed marginalization and invisibility (Mukhopadhyay 2004). Some authors argue that “intersectionality” has became a depoliticized, whitened, neoliberalized academic concept that has nothing to do any longer with radical social critique and the feminist activism of its beginnings in the 1980s (Ferree 2011; Tomlinson 2013). Those theoretical and geopolitical dynamics have left their mark on feminist studies of war, especially from the 1980s onward. Thus, the following questions emerge: What do the concepts of women, gender, and intersectionality, and their trajectories, mean for Western feminist theorizing of war and violent con ict? How have they been used, and what are the theoretical and political implications of this usage for feminist scholarship in the second decade of twenty- rst century? Women and War: Agency, Emancipation, Equality In 1987, Elshtain published Women and War. The book appeared at the time of the rise in power of neoliberalism and conservativism in the West. Within Western feminism, the 1980s were the time of femocracy and the ascension of liberal feminism. Women’s agency and emancipation and women’s/gender equality have been major conceptual tools and political goals of much of second wave feminism and to liberal feminism in the West. Through the 1980s, women’s equality—in its liberal feminist interpretation—became a dominant analytical and political  project, resulting in some acceptance of women’s integration into the world of politics and war, and in the marginalization of the radical US feminist politics of separatism and the standpoint of women’s essential di erence, peacefulness, and higher ethical standards. The hope of (liberal) feminist scholarship and struggle for equality of the time was (still) that, once women entered masculine institutions and social domains, they would transform them. Thus, the concepts of equality and women’s agency had an explicitly liberatory and emancipatory cloak. As an analytical tool, the concepts of equality and agency have inspired feminist studies on women’s soldiering, arguing that women all over the world not only are capable of ghting, but also are motivated by the same political projects of nationalism, social justice, independence, and freedom (Peries 1998; Sklevicky Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28341/chapter/215129472 by Boston College user on 24 January 2024 p. 23 1987). As a political project, equality and agency have resulted, among other things, in women’s actual entry into the Western states’ armies, although generally not in combat roles (with a few speci c exceptions, such as in Israel and since recently the United States). Militarism and militarization have since then become major issues in feminist theoretical work and activism (from the early work of Cynthia Enloe in 1983 to the recent work of Cynthia Cockburn in 2012), for both those who support and those who oppose idea that women’s participation in wars and state armies is part and parcel of gender equality. Seen from the perspective of that time and those debates, Elshtain’s book is signi cant for several reasons. First, it is a comprehensive analysis of women’s—and men’s—engagements in and against war and violence, as well as of dominant social ideologies that inspire those engagements. While gender was not the substantive analytical tool Elshtain used, she analyzed social practices and ideas through which a majority of women are continuously positioned as peaceful and life a rming, and men as soldiers. But she also paid attention to those few men who engage against war and those few women who join the violence or instigate it. Second, Elshtain’s work can be seen as both continuity of and a departure from the existing feminist scholarship on war at that time—especially the classical second wave Western feminist scholarship on World War I and II, anti-colonial wars, and the socialist revolutions of the 1960s and 1970s. In terms of continuity, that scholarship, using “woman/women” as the main analytical tool, addressed a vast variety of women’s experiences, roles, and positions in violent con icts, and engagements with war and violence, whether at the “home front” or in the ghting itself. It addressed everything from women’s entry into the war industry and economy as replacements for men ghting on the frontlines, to women soldiering and nursing, to resistance and experiences of war violence, displacement, and losses (Greenwald 1990; Higonnet et al. 1987; Molyneux 1985; Molyneux and Halliday 1981; Reif 1986; Woollacott 1994). However, Western feminist scholarship in (and since) the 1980s seldom addressed speci c cases of women’s participation in wars and violence that could not be characterized as liberatory or emancipatory struggles. Among the rst, and valuable few, were works by Koontz (1987) on German women’s engagement in Nazism and by Cock (1992, 1994) on women in the South African Defence Force. Stronger still, when women’s participation in hegemonic or murderous political projects is addressed, those projects have long been characterized as essentially male, and the women within them seen as manipulated into joining (Seidel and Gunther 1988). It would take more than a decade for two other important collections on women, gender, and right-wing politics to appear (Bacchetta and Power 2002; Passmore 2003; recently, Malländer 2015, originally published in 2009 in German). Elsewhere in the world, Western feminist blindness to women’s will to power was criticized as expression of hegemony and privilege (Roy 1997). South Asian feminist studies of the Partition of India in 1947 and communal violence in the 1980s and 1990s, for example, have explicitly questioned the idea that women’s emancipation and empowerment occur only within the social justice movements inspired by feminism. p. 24 Rather than ignoring it, they have theorized women’s violent agency within communal violence, and women’s participation in the creation of radical, nationalist, violent ideologies and practices as an expression of women’s empowerment (Butalia 2001; Je ery and Basu 2001; Rajasingham-Senanayake 2001; Sarkar and Butalia 1995). Elshtain’s attention to violence perpetrated by women therefore marks a  departure from both essentialist notions of radical Western feminism that woman’s agency is always and only an agency of peace, and from—surprisingly equally essentialist—notions of liberal Western feminism that women’s participation in war and collective violence almost invariably means either brainwashing, or engagement in a struggle for social justice on the righteous side of the divide. Gendering War: Practices, Processes, and Products Toward the end of the 1980s, the concepts of gender and intersectionality, together with constructivist Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28341/chapter/215129472 by Boston College user on 24 January 2024 social science perspectives, opened up discursive possibilities for a di erent feminist scholarship. Thus, parallel with liberal feminist in uence in the study of women and war, and the attention to women’s experiences, roles, and agency, the new concepts and theoretical perspectives gave rise to another set of feminist arguments: that war and violence produce speci c kinds of racialized and sexualized femininities and masculinities, rather than being the simple e ects of (innate or learned) aggression by men. As a result, in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s a number of feminists looked back again at the World War I and II, colonial and postcolonial violence, and in the United States at the Vietnam war, this time through a constructivist lens, using new analytical tools. A huge body of work followed: on culture, literature and media, the ways women and men have become symbols of—and not just actors in—speci c war practices, and the ways in which those very practices are gendered (Cooper et al. 1989; Je ords 1989, 1990; Macdonald 1987; Warner 1985). Equally important, this work displays signi cantly broader feminist attention to the ways our notions and practices of femininities and masculinities intersect with heteronormativity, race, and nationhood, among other elements (Cooke and Woollacott 1993; Melman 1998). This stream of feminist scholarship has brought about a new set of inquiries, including how speci c practices of war and violence produce subject positions and identities of women and men, foster speci c kinds of femininities and masculinities, while marginalizing and delegitimizing others; and how race, sexuality, nationhood, and political ideologies become part and parcel of these violent processes. Two wars in which the Western powers engaged in the 1980s and 1990s have made those questions both theoretically and politically pertinent for Western feminist thinking about violent con icts. These were the Falklands/Malvinas war in 1982 and the First Gulf War in 1990–1991; the former was fought by Britain against Argentina, the latter fought by the United States and its Coalition against Iraq. During the British p. 25 war with Argentina, it was impossible to miss how gender, race, and nationhood became interwoven in British media representations of the war, and especially how British women became symbols of whiteness and nationhood (Seidel and Gunther 1988). During the First Gulf War, both British and US political leadership appropriated feminist language for war-mongering rhetoric. On the one hand, they used concepts of women’s equality and emancipation to distinguish Western women (and especially women soldiers) from apparently multiple victimized (by religion, tradition, and men) women in Kuwait and Iraq (Forder 1995); on the other hand, they used radical feminist discourses on male sexual aggression, coupled with racism and Orientalism, to depict Iraqi men as rapists of Kuwaiti women and to distinguish them from US/Western men, who were represented as (potent/ial) saviors (Farmanfarmaian 1992). The political importance of those two wars lies in the multiple and ambiguous positioning of women within contemporary Western hegemonic wars and militaries (Enloe 2000). Theoretically, they brought Western feminist scholarship on war and violence closer to other elds wherein feminists studied the ambiguous social position of white European women and men, such as in research on colonial projects (McClintock 1995; Sinha 1995; Stoler 1995, 2002). Furthermore, the use of gender and representation allowed for feminist attention to masculinities within which a man—including the male conscript and soldier—stops being reduced to “malevolent patriarch” or “killing machine” and becomes a socially produced subject whose willingness to die and kill in war was seen as requiring sustained material and symbolic investment  (Bourke 1999; Cockburn and Žarkov 2002). Connell’s (1995) concept of hegemonic masculinity contributed to feminist analysis of war and political and military institutions beyond the mere presence of men, as producers of identities, ideologies, and practices, and ultimately as constructive sites of social relations of power that structure not just relations between women and men, and those between men, but also other— intersecting, interlocking, and mutually constitutive—forms of domination and exploitation, from interpersonal to geopolitical (Cohn and Enloe 2014; Zalewski and Parpart 1997). This new stream of feminist scholarship on war reached its peak with yet another set of violent events at the dawn of the twenty- rst century: the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 and the consequent US war against Afghanistan; the Second Gulf War in 2003; and the media exposure of sexual violence against male Iraqi Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28341/chapter/215129472 by Boston College user on 24 January 2024 prisoners in Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison, also in 2003. If the Falkland and First Gulf wars brought up the questions of Western women’s ambiguous positioning within Western hegemonies, the violence of the new millennium seems to have questioned the very Western feminist project and its theoretical tools as problematic (Hesford 2011). The “war on terror” and violence in Abu Ghraib in particular led to feminist analyses that recognize the signi cance of Orientalism, Islamophobia, racism, homophobia, and sexism, as practices and concepts, to the understanding of gender, war, and violence (Alexander and Hawkesworth 2008; Hunt and Rygiel 2006; Nguyen 2012). Feminists addressed the impacts of those wars and of their media, cultural, and political representations on the p. 26 everyday lives of Muslim and Arab communities within the West—and equally important—on the (re)construction of the Western subject itself (Butler 2004, 2010; Puar 2007; Žarkov 2011). Two aspects of the theoretical and political relevance of those studies should be brought up. First, attention to sexual violence against men in Abu Ghraib destabilized, to some extent, feminist attachments to women as exclusive victims of sexual violence, while the participation of women in sexual torture reinvigorated the feminist self-examination of the question of women’s participation in violence and entry into Western militaries (Enloe 2004). Second, those studies further destabilized, to some extent, the primacy of gender as an analytical tool in understanding war and violence. While not all of those studies explicitly used intersectionality as a concept, they used it as a theoretical perspective, stressing that there are social and geopolitical contexts within which race, religion, and sexuality—rather than gender—become the primary social relations of power that structure the position of social groups, and their male and female members, within the contexts of violence (see especially Sexton and Lee 2006; Gordon 2006; Žarkov 2011). However, while Western feminist research on wars waged by their own societies across the globe during this period brought up all those important theoretical and political insights into the gendered dynamics of violence, the early 1990s saw two other violent con icts that would result in very di erent feminist studies. Feminist Othering: Geographies of Thinking Between 1991 and 1995, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia disintegrated through a war that would become infamous for widespread patterns of sexual violence. Between April and July 1994, genocide was conducted, systematically and thoroughly, in Rwanda. In both cases, ethnic-based hatreds were quickly noted—by mainstream politicians and scholars both within and outside those countries—as the main cause of violence. In the case of Rwanda, there was an assumption (though not consistently followed in scholarship) that ethnicities had been produced through colonial practices (Mamdani 2001). In the case of former Yugoslavia, however, ethnicities were taken—by scholars and politicians outside of the country, as much as by nationalists inside the country—as natural and essential characteristics of the population, rather than as socially produced categories. With very few exceptions (such as Cockburn 1998; Copelon 1993; Seifert 1993, 1996), Western feminist scholarship on the war in former Yugoslavia did not di er much from the mainstream scholarship, especially in the early years.  On the one hand, the war in former Yugoslavia, especially the patterns of sexual violence, has produced a huge body of feminist scholarship, from law to anthropology to refugee studies, where intersections of gender and ethnicity have been crucial tools of analysis. On the other hand, a strange mixture of unlikely bedfellow discourses has made this body of knowledge highly problematic. First, the essentializing of p. 27 ethnicity has meant that feminists—just like the mainstream scholars—failed to ask how ethnicity became the privileged category of di erence, by which social, economic, political, and symbolic processes has reality been reduced to ethnic identities, and how have people, places, and histories acquired this single signi er that erased all others? Second, old discourses of Balkanism returned, designating the region once again (as in the early twentieth century) as a place of violence and primitivism (Todorova 1997). These old Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28341/chapter/215129472 by Boston College user on 24 January 2024 narratives, together with the focus on ethnic identities, became enmeshed in a mixture of discourses on (post-)communism and people behind the “iron curtain” accustomed to autocratic leaders; on the “history of ethnic hatred” as a cause of the war by which socialist Yugoslavia disintegrated; and on the transition to capitalism. Together, these discourses created geographies of violence within which “the Balkans” became a new “symbolic continent” (Bakić-Hayden and Hayden 1992). Furthermore, those discourses easily lent themselves to the radical feminist discourses on gender and sexuality (Žarkov and Drezgić 2005). While, as already mentioned, radical US feminism was losing ground in the West throughout the 1980s, it came back with a vengeance to “the Balkans.” Gender and intersectionality—marked here as a nexus of male sexual bestiality toward women and essentialized ethnic identities—produced clear-cut victims and villains, this time not divided only as male sexual violator and female rape victims, but assigned with local ethnic identities: Serb male rapist and Muslim female victim still stand as symbols of the war in former Yugoslavia. In addition, collective amnesia seems to have hit much of Western feminist scholarship, declaring the war rapes in Bosnia as the worst (or sometimes the only) known in history (see Stiglmayer 1993). This is not to deny the deliberate and widespread use of war rapes in Bosnia, nor the predominance of Bosnian Serb forces as perpetrators and Bosnian Muslim women as victims. Rather, this analysis points out that the way gender, sexuality, and ethnicity have been utilized through those discourses has created exclusive subject positions for speci c groups of women and men in the region, through speci c gendered understanding of sexual violence and ethnicity. War rapes in former Yugoslavia have made feminists in the region (and elsewhere) engage in huge debates, leading to con icts and splits of the feminist groups and movements (see from Benderly 1997 to Kajevska 2014). A variety of concepts for these rapes is still used, each with a particular political echo: rape as a weapon of war, rape as torture, genocidal rape, rape as a war crime, and so on. But, while Bosnia gures prominently and regularly in feminist debates about sexual violence against women in violent con icts, Rwanda received much less attention from Western feminist scholarship (unlike in mainstream genocide studies, in which Rwandan genocide is minutely studied, but without attention to gender). This has prompted Patricia Sellers, also a contributor to this Handbook, who worked on cases of sexual violence in both Bosnia and Rwanda within the Prosecutor’s O ce of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (ICTY/R), to note that European ethnocentrism has made the women of Bosnia much more important to Western feminist scholars than the women of Rwanda (see Sellers, Chapter 16 in this volume). However, as noted earlier, this attention to Bosnian women raped in the war was a p. 28 double-edged sword: on the one hand, it put the rape of women on the international agenda, and created momentum that impacted international laws and legal practices on sexual violence in war. On the other hand, the overwhelming attention to war rape as women’s ultimate war experience has drastically reduced the subjectivity of the Muslim women in Bosnia and Tutsi women in Rwanda to that of the “rape victim,” and has equated their sexual vulnerability with their ontological position. Furthermore, as I discuss in the following, ever since the early 1990s, war rapes remain one of the most dominant topics in the Western study of war experiences of non-Western women, with grave theoretical and political consequences.  Toward Conclusion: On the Ramifications of Feminist Theorizing and Missing Pieces Politically and in terms of global feminist organizing, the war in the former Yugoslavia and the genocide in Rwanda have generated huge feminist activism that has contributed signi cantly to international laws and legal structures; for example, UN war tribunals and international courts were established, and gender- based, sexual violence and the rape of women in wars was listed as a war crime in the Rome Statute. However, inadvertently, this also has elevated the crime of rape over all others, creating subject positions and hierarchies of victimhood. So, today, according to successive UN Security Council resolutions, the rape Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28341/chapter/215129472 by Boston College user on 24 January 2024 of a local woman by a local man, during a war, is a threat to international security. But demolishing her home, destroying her water source, stealing her land, and expelling her from her ancestral territory are not. Not surprisingly, the elevation of war rape to the position of ultimate violence against women, as women’s ultimate experience of war and an international security threat, has opened up a discursive space for the return of some old racist, colonial tales of (local) victims and savages, and (international/Western) saviors. The new humanitarianism and interventionism discourses (Jacoby 2015) have used these narratives of war rapes and local men’s savagery to local women to their advantage, hijacking discourses of female victimization and human rights. And (as noted earlier) while those hijacking practices have been criticized by Western feminists in the cases of the “war on terror” in Afghanistan and Iraq, they have somehow passed with little notice in the cases of the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. At the same time, the ethnic and religious identity-based explanations for causes of “civil”/“local” wars were gaining prominence in the mainstream scholarship, with Kaldor’s (1999) “new wars” theory as a crystallizer. And while those mainstream identity-based approaches to war do not actually use the concepts of gender and intersectionality, they utilize with great skill notions of female sexual vulnerability and a need of male protection, and combine it with racist notions of violent non-Western (Balkan and African) p. 29 masculinities. There is currently little communication between feminist and mainstream theorizing of contemporary wars, so ideas about “new wars” remain largely unchallenged by feminists, or are even taken for granted (Peterson 2008). The task of feminist critics of such perspectives would be not just to refuse the hiearchization of rape as an ultimate crime against women, and the ontological construction of non- Western women through rapability and non-Western men through sexual aggression, but also to expose how those gendered and racist constructs inform practices and justi cations of contemporary Western military interventions into non-Western countries, reconstruct the Western subject as peaceful, democratic, and justice-making (Žarkov 2014), and support exclusionary citizenship policies within the West (among other things). There is yet another di erence, and a missing piece, in the ways Western feminists analyzed wars in the 1980s and 1990s and those in the new millennium: attention to the economy. Global neoliberal economy and its nexus with militarism and their gendered e ects at home and abroad became especially important subjects of US feminist research (Enloe 2010, 2013). This entry of economy into the study of militarism and US hegemony redresses to some extent the earlier criticism that feminists in the West have been so seduced by their own successes vis-à-vis the state and women’s equality, and by identity politics, that they have forgotten about global economic inequalities, redistribution, and solidarity with the women of the South (Fraser 2009; Jaquette 2003; Mohanty 2002). This criticism could also be related to the fact that there is still no substantial feminist scholarship of war economies, the way it exists in critical mainstream war studies. In particular, there is little feminist critique of the dominant mainstream theoretical paradigms such as Collier’s (2000) “greed and grievance,” or engagement with those asserting the links between economic underdevelopment and war (Murshed 2002). Many of those economic and rational choice theories of the causes of contemporary wars were created in the 1990s and gained in popularity in the new millennium. Some support the argument that economic greed of local (in this case, African) warlords and male youth, in conjunction with failed states, produce wars. Such theorizing—which since the 1990s also informs the World Bank’s con ict policies—uses intersections of gender, race, sexuality, ethnicity, and age as its essential ingredients and situates them within a geopolitically informed worldview that represents the Western model of capitalist, neoliberal economy as a “peace economy,” disconnected from “war economies” elsewhere, and o ers neoliberalism as a solution to wars (Žarkov 2015). The task of feminist critics would in this case be not only to analyze how women and men are a ected by or engaged in war economies, but also (1) to analyze how war, violence, and militarism become intrinsic to the contemporary neoliberal economy; (2) how they become modes of both economic production and social reproduction; and (3) how racialized and sexualized gendered ideologies and practices, hierarchies, and inequalities become Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28341/chapter/215129472 by Boston College user on 24 January 2024 necessary for the sustenance and legitimization of the violent world order. Such feminist analysis would follow in the footsteps of the scholarship already noted here: one that is mercilessly self-critical of one’s own position within the global society and one’s own theoretical tools by which the world is explained. p. 30 References Alexander, M. Jacqui, and Chandra Talpade Mohanty, eds. 1997. Feminist Genealogies, Colonial Legacies, Democratic Futures. New York and London: Routledge. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Alexander, Karen, and Mary E. Hawkesworth, eds. 2008. War and Terror: Feminist Perspectives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28341/chapter/215129472 by Boston College user on 24 January 2024 Bacchetta, Paola, and Margaret Power, eds. 2002. Right-Wing Women: From Conservatives to Extremists around the World. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Baehr, Amy R., ed. 2004. Varieties of Feminist Liberalism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Bakić-Hayden, Milica, and Robert M. Hayden. 1992. “Orientalist Variations on the Theme ʻBalkansʼ: Symbolic Geography in Recent Yugoslav Cultural Politics.” Slavic Review 52, no. 1: 1–16. Google Scholar WorldCat Benderly, Jill. 1997. “Rape, Feminism, and Nationalism in the War in Yugoslav Successor States.” In Feminist Nationalism, edited by Lois West, 59–72. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Bourke, Joanna. 1999. An Intimate History of Killing: Face to Face Killing in 20th Century Warfare. New York: Basic Books. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Braidotti, Rosi. 2002. “The Uses and Abuses of the Sex/Gender Distinction in European Feminist Practice.” In Thinking Di erently, A Reader in European Womenʼs Studies, edited by Gabriele Gri in and Rosi Braidotti, 286–306. London: Zed Books. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Butalia, Urvashi. 2001. “Women and Communal Conflict: New Challenges for the Womenʼs Movement in India.” In Victims, Perpetrators or Actors? Gender, Armed Conflict and Political Violence, edited by C. Moser and F. Clark, 99–113. London: Zed Books. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Butler, Judith. 2004. Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London and New York: Verso. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Butler, Judith. 2010. Frames of War: When is Life Grievable? London and New York: Verso. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Chen, Peiying. 2004. Acting “Otherwise”: The Institutionalization of Womenʼs/Gender Studies in Taiwanʼs Universities. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Cock, Jacklyn. 1992. Women and War in South Africa. London: Open Letters. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Cock, Jacklyn. 1994. “Women and the Military: Implications for Demilitarization in the 1990s in South Africa.” Gender & Society 8, no. 2: 152–169. Google Scholar WorldCat Cockburn, Cynthia. 1998. The Space between Us: Negotiating Gender and National Identities in Conflict. London: Zed Books.  Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Cockburn, Cynthia. 2012. Antimilitarism, Political and Gender Dynamics of Peace Movements. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Cockburn, Cynthia, and Dubravka Žarkov. 2002. The Postwar Moment: Militaries, Masculinities and International Peacekeeping. London: Lawrence & Wishart. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28341/chapter/215129472 by Boston College user on 24 January 2024 Cohn, Carol, and Cynthia Enloe. 2014. “A Conversation with Cynthia Enloe: Feminists Look at Masculinity and the Men Who Wage War.” Signs 40, no. 1: 1188–1207. Google Scholar WorldCat Connell, R. W. 1995. Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Collier, Paul, and Anke Hoe ler. 2000. “Greed and Grievance in Civil War.” Policy Research Working Paper Series 2355. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Cooke, Miriam G., and Angela Woollacott, eds. 1993. Gendering War Talk. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Cooper, Helen M., Adrienne Auslander Munich, and Susan Merrill Squier, eds. 1989. Arms and the Woman: War, Gender, and Literary Representation. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC p. 31 Copelon, Rhonda. 1993. “Surfacing Gender: Reconceptualizing Crimes against Women in Time of War.” In Mass Rape: The War against Women in Bosnia-Herzegovina, edited by A. Stiglmayer, 197–218. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Crawford, Mary, and Annie Fox. 2007. “IX. From Sex to Gender and Back Again: Co-optation of a Feminist.” Feminism & Psychology 17, no. 4: 481–486. Google Scholar WorldCat Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 140, 139–167. Reprinted in The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique, 2nd ed., edited by David Kairys, 195–217. ed. New York: Pantheon, 1990. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN). 1987. “Development, Crises and Alternative Visions: Third World Womenʼs Perspective.” Accessed November 16, 2015. http://www.dawnnet.org/. WorldCat Dworkin, Andrea. 1981. Pornography: Men Possessing Women. London: Womenʼs Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Elshtain, Jean Bethke. 1987. Women and War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Enloe, Cynthia. 1983. Does Khaki Become You? The Militarization of Womenʼs Lives. Boston: South End Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Enloe, Cynthia. 2000. Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Womenʼs Lives. Berkeley: University of California Press.  Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Enloe, Cynthia. 2004. “Wielding Masculinity Inside Abu Ghraib: Making Feminist Sense of an American Military Scandal.” Asian Journal for Womenʼs Studies 10, no. 3: 89–102. Google Scholar WorldCat Enloe, Cynthia. 2010. Nimoʼs War, Emmaʼs War: Making Feminist Sense of the Iraq War. Berkeley: University of California Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Enloe, Cynthia. 2013. Seriously! Investigating Crashes and Crises as if Women Mattered. Berkeley: University of California Press. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28341/chapter/215129472 by Boston College user on 24 January 2024 Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Farmanfarmaian, Abouali. 1992. “Sexuality in the Gulf War: Did You Measure Up?” Genders 13: 1–29. Google Scholar WorldCat Ferree, Myra M. 2011. “The Discursive Politics of Feminist Intersectionality.” In Framing Intersectionality: Debates on a Multi- Faceted Concept in Gender Studies, edited by Helma Lutz, Maria Teresa Herrera Vivar, and Linda Supik, 55–65. Farnham, Surrey; Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Forder, C. 1995. “ʻWomen Warriors:ʼ Representation of Women Soldiers in British Daily Newspaper Photographs of the Gulf War (January to March 1991).” In (Hetero)sexual Politics, edited by M. Maynard and J. Purvis, 108–123. London: Taylor & Francis. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Fraser, Nancy. 2009. “Feminism, Capitalism and the Cunning of History.” New Le Review 57: 97–117. Google Scholar WorldCat Greenwald, Maria. 1990. Women, War, and Work: The Impact of World War I on Women Workers in the United States. London and Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Grosz, Elizabeth. 1990. “Conclusion—A Note on Essentialism and Di erence.” In Feminist Knowledge: Critique and Construct, edited by Sneya Gunew, 332–345. London: Routledge. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Gordon, Avery. 2006. “Abu Ghraib: Imprisonment and the War on Terror.” Race & Class 48, no. 1: 42–59. Google Scholar WorldCat Hesford, Wendy. 2011. Spectacular Rhetorics, Human Rights Visions, Recognitions, Feminisms. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Higonnet, Margaret R., Jane Jenson, Sonya Michel, and Margaret Collins Weitz, eds. 1987. Behind the Lines: Gender and the Two World Wars. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC hooks, bell. 1981. Ainʼt I a Woman? Black Women and Feminism. Boston: South End Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC p. 32 Hunt, Krista, and Kim Rygiel. 2006. (En)Gendering the War on Terror: War Stories and Camouflaged Politics. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Jacoby, Tim. 2015. “Humanitarian Assistance and New Humanitarianism: Some Old Questions.” In Conflict, Peace, Security and Development: Theories and Methodologies, edited by Helen Hintjens and Dubravka Žarkov, 39–51. London: Routledge. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Jaquette, Jane. 2003. “Feminism and the Challenges of the ʻPost-Cold Warʼ World.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 5, no. 3: 331–354. Google Scholar WorldCat Je ery, Patricia, and Amrita Basu, eds. 2001. Resisting the Sacred and the Secular: Womenʼs Activism and Politicized Religion in South Asia. New Delhi: Kali for Women. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28341/chapter/215129472 by Boston College user on 24 January 2024 Je ords, Susan. 1989. The Remasculinization of America: Gender and the Vietnam War. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Je ords, Susan. 1990. “Fathers: Gender and the Vietnam War.” In From Hanoi to Hollywood: The Vietnam War in American Film, edited by Linda Dittmar and Gene Michaud, 202–215. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Kajevska, A. Miškovska. 2014. “Taking a Stand in Times of Violent Societal Changes: Belgrade and Zagreb Feministsʼ Positionings on the (post-)Yugoslav Wars and Each Other (1991–2000).” PhD diss., University of Amsterdam. Kaldor, Mary. 1999. New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. Cambridge: Polity Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Koontz, Claudia. 1987. Mothers of the Fatherland: Women, the Family and Nazi Politics. New York: St. Martinʼs Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Macdonald, Sharon. 1987. “Drawing the Lines—Gender, Peace and War: An Introduction.” In Images of Women in Peace and War: Cross-Cultural and Historical Perspectives, edited by Sharon Macdonald, Pat Holden, and Shirley Ardener, 1–26. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Malländer, Elissa. 2015. Female SS Guards and Workaday Violence: The Majdanek Concentration Camp, 1942–1944. Translated by Patricia Szabor. Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Mamdani, Mahmood. 2001. When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism and the Genocide in Rwanda. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC McClintock, Anne. 1995. Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest. London: Routledge. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Melman, Billie. ed. 1998. Borderlines: Genders and Identities in War and Peace, 1870–1930. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Mohanty, Chandra T. 1984. “ʻUnder Western Eyesʼ Revisited: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses.” Boundary 12, no. 3: 333–358. Google Scholar WorldCat Mohanty, Chandra T. 2002. “Under Western Eyes” Revisited: Feminist Solidarity Through Anticapitalist Struggles.” Signs 28, no. 2: 499–535. Google Scholar WorldCat Molyneux, Maxine D. 1985. “Mobilization without Emancipation? Womenʼs Interests, the State, and Revolution in Nicaragua.” Feminist Studies 11, no. 2: 227–254.  Google Scholar WorldCat Molyneux, Maxine D., and Fred Halliday. 1981. Ethiopian Revolution. New York: Verso Books. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Moya, Paula M. L. 1997. “Postmodernism, ʻRealism,ʼ and the Politics of Identity: Cherrie Moraga and Chicana Feminism.” In Feminist Genealogies, Colonial Legacies, Democratic Futures, edited by M. Jacqui Alexander and Chandra Talpade Mohanty, 125– 150. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28341/chapter/215129472 by Boston College user on 24 January 2024 Mukhopadhyay, Maitrayee. 2004. “Mainstreaming Gender or ʻStreamingʼ Gender Away: Feminists Marooned in the Development p. 33 Business.” In Repositioning Feminisms in Development, IDS Bulletin 35, edited by Andrea Cornwall, Elizabeth Harrison, and Ann Whitehead, 95–103. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies. Murshed, S. Mansoob. 2002. “Conflict, Civil War and Underdevelopment: An Introduction.” Journal of Peace Research 39, no. 4: 387–393. Google Scholar WorldCat Nguyen, Mimi Thi. 2012. The Gi of Freedom: War, Debt and Other Refugee Passages. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Nussbaum, Martha, and Jonathan Glover. 1995. Women, Culture, and Development: A Study of Human Capabilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Passmore, Kevin. 2003. Women, Gender, and Fascism in Europe, 1919–45. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Peries, S. 1998. “Metamorphosis of the Tamil Woman in Nationalist War for Elam.” Paper presented at the Women in Conflict Zone Network conference, York University, Toronto, Canada. Peterson, V. Spike. 2008. “ʻNew Warsʼ and Gendered Economies.” Feminist Review 88: 7–20. Google Scholar WorldCat Puar, Jasbir. 2007. Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Rajan, R. Sunder. 1993. Real and Imagined Women: Gender, Culture and Postcolonialism. London: Routledge. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Rajasingham-Senanayake, D. 2001. “Ambivalent Empowerment: Tragedy of Tamil Women in Conflict, in Women, War and Peace.” In South Asia: Beyond Victimhood to Agency, edited by R. Manchanda, 102–130. London: Sage Publications. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Reif, Linda L. 1986. “Women in Latin American Guerrilla Movements: A Comparative Perspective.” Comparative Politics 18, no. 2: 147–169. Google Scholar WorldCat Rich, Adrianne C. 1976. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. New York: W. W. Norton. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Roy, Anita. 1997. “Introduction: Cultural Studies, Violence and Femininity.” A Cultural Review 8, no. 3: 259–263. Google Scholar WorldCat Rubin, Gayle. 1975. “The Tra ic in Women: Notes on the ʻPolitical Economyʼ of Sex.” In Toward an Anthropology of Women, edited  by Rayna R. Reiter, 157–210. New York: Monthly Review Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Ruddick, Sara. 1980. “Maternal Thinking.” Feminist Studies 6: 342–367. Google Scholar WorldCat Ruddick, Sara. 1989. Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace. New York: Ballantine Books. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Sarkar, Tanika, and Butalia Urvashi. 1995. Women and Right-Wing Movements: Indian Experiences. London: Zed Books. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28341/chapter/215129472 by Boston College user on 24 January 2024 Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Scott, Joan Wallach. 1986. “Gender as a Useful Category of Historical Analysis.” The American Historical Review 91, no. 5: 1053– 1075. Google Scholar WorldCat Seidel, Gill, and Renate Günther. 1988. “ʻNationʼ and ʻFamilyʼ in the British Media Reporting of the ʻFalklands Conflict.ʼ” In The Nature of the Right: A Feminist Analysis of Order Patterns, edited by Gill Seidel, 115–128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Seifert, Ruth. 1993. “War and Rape: A Preliminary Analysis.” In Mass Rape: The War Against Women in Bosnia-Herzegovina, edited by Alexandra Stiglmayer, 54–72. Lincoln: University of Nebrasca Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Seifert, Ruth. 1996. “The Second Front: The Logic of Sexual Violence in Wars.” Womenʼs Studies International Forum 19, no. 1–2: 35–43. Google Scholar WorldCat Sen, Gita, and Caren Grown. 1987. Development, Crisis and Alternative Vision: Third World Womenʼs Perspectives. New York: Monthly Review Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC p. 34 Sexton, Jared, and Elizabeth Lee. 2006. “Figuring the Prison: Prerequisites of Torture at Abu Ghraib.” Antipode 38, no. 5: 1005– 1022. Google Scholar WorldCat Sinha, Mrinalini. 1995. Colonial Masculinity: The “Manly Englishman” and the “E eminate Bengali” in the Late Nineteenth Century. New Delhi: Kali for Women. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Sklevicky, Lydia. 1987. “Konji, Zene, Ratovi: Problem utemeljenja historije zena u Jugoslaviji” [Horses, Women, War: the Problems in Establishing Womenʼs History in Yugoslavia]. In Zena i Drustvo: Kultiviranje Dijaloga [Woman and Society” Cultivation of a Dialogue], edited by Lydia Sklevicky, 51–61. Zagreb: Sociolosko Drustvo Hrvatske. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Stiglmayer, Alexandra. 1993. Mass Rape: The War against Women in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Stoler, Ann L. 1995. Race and the Education of Desire: Foucaultʼs History of Sexuality and the Colonial Order of Things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Stoler, Ann. 2002. Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power: Race and the Intimate in Colonial Rule. Berkeley: University of California Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Stratigaki, Maria. 2004. “The Cooptation of Gender Concepts in EU Policies: The Case of ʻReconciliation of Work and Family.ʼ” Social Politics 11, no 1: 30–56. Google Scholar WorldCat Todorova, Maria. 1997. Imagining the Balkans. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Tomlinson, Barbara. 2013. “Colonizing Intersectionality: Replicating Racial Hierarchy in Feminist Academic Arguments.” Social Identities 19, no 2: 254–272. Google Scholar WorldCat Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28341/chapter/215129472 by Boston College user on 24 January 2024 Warner, Marina. 1985. Monuments and Maidens: The Allegory of the Female Form. New York: Atheneum. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC West, Robin L. 1998. “Jurisprudence and Gender.” University of Chicago Law Review 55, no. 1: 11–50. Google Scholar WorldCat Woollacott, Angela. 1994. On Her Their Lives Depend: Munitions Workers in the Great War. Berkeley: University of California Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Yuval-Davis, Nira. 1999. “What Is ʻTransversal Politicsʼ?” Soundings 12: 94–98. Google Scholar WorldCat Zalewski, Marysia, and Jane Parpart. 1997. The “Man” Question In International Relations. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Žarkov, Dubravka. 2011. “Exposures and Invisibilities: Media, Masculinities and the Narratives of Wars in an Intersectional Perspective.” In Framing Intersectionality. Debates on a Multi-Faceted Concept in Gender Studies, edited by Helma Lutz, Maria Teresa Herrera Vivar, and Linda Supik, 105–120. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Žarkov, Dubravka. 2014. “Ontologies of International Humanitarian and Criminal Law: ʻLocalsʼ and ʻInternationalsʼ in Discourses and Practices of Justice.” In Narratives of Justice In and Out of the Courtroom: Former Yugoslavia and Beyond, edited by Dubravska Žarkov and Marlies Glasius, 3–21. New York: Springer. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Žarkov, Dubravka. 2015. “Identity Politics of Wars: Theorizing, Policy and Intervention.” In Conflict, Peace, Security and Development: Theories and Methodologies, edited by Hellen Hintjens and Dubravska Žarkov, 117–132. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Žarkov, Dubravka, and Rada Drezgić. 2005. “Feministicke nevolje sa Balkanom” [Feminist Troubles with the Balkans]. Sociologija (Journal of Sociological Association of Serbia, Belgrade) XLVII, no 4: 289–306. Google Scholar WorldCat