To Heck with Sugar and Spice

Luci Kartar-Hyett

Birmingham City University

Concealed in mud banks, dotted around middle England forupwards of one thousand years lay several valorous Viking

soldiers masqueraded in full armour, having paid the ultimate

price in fighting for their cause.1 Brave, aggressive and

patriotic just some of the adjectives used to describe

behaviours customarily associated with the ideologically

gendered male body; except these were women. Thus, assumptions

made merely through the archetypal soldiering role and the

antithetical cross-over of gender normativity that these women

soldiers represent, in a social organisation that governs the

structural and ideological expectations of the performance of

gender, are not isolated. But, are testament to the perceived

entrenchment of gender identities which associate the feminine

with the subordinate and the masculine with the dominant in

setting positions within social hierarchies. Binaries such as

public/private, powerful/weak, aggressive/peaceful are all

words historically genderised to defend unequal treatment of

anyone that ascribes to those lesser-perceived adjectives.

Thus, usually relating such vectors to the female biological

make-up, an attempt is made to suggest that women are

naturally incapable of acting outside of these boundaries of

behaviour which socially confines emancipation as well as to

restrict a genuine belief that it can be achieved.

1 http://bonesdontlie.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/viking-women-a-reinterpretation-of-the-bones/

This essay will identify that the United Kingdom as a state

has been integral in precipitating the unequal treatment of

women by virtue of the importance that it has placed upon good

citizenship and that the militaristic strategies deployed to

ensure state security domestically has in fact contributed to

women’s insecurity which provides a microcosmic representation

of the picture globally. Ontologically therefore, enough has

been written about the existence of patriarchy in domestic and

international systems which seek to exert power and control by

men over women and therefore, the notion that the military, as

a centralised institution provides a natural extension to this

androcentrism, as an institution that is fundamental to

asserting state protection, security and dominance.

Epistemologically, this essay will therefore seek to establish

whether women, who choose to engage with these institutions,

achieve emancipation in such connatural and oppressive state

structures when crossing the divide from the feminine

(private) to the masculine (public) or whether the feminine is

anonymised and therefore masculinised by conditioning; thus

rendering gender equality a superficial pretext.

Methodologically, in using a bottom-up approach to discourse

analysis of a woman’s experience in the military and in

considering their occupation of non-stereotypical roles, will

demonstrate that women simply adapt their behaviour so as to

assimilate into patriarchal structures. This may be of benefit

to the individual in terms of quality of experience, promotion

opportunities and general embourgoisment but, does very little

to challenge androcentrism and misogyny if women are expected

to, and do just, ‘fit in’.

Security

Historically, stories that are told about men and women, in

the language used to tell them has had the effect that such

constructs have become an entrenched reproduction of attitudes

throughout the field of International Relations. In this way,

gender (taken to mean ‘woman’) is perceived as an inapposite

consideration to security because, from a realist perspective,

domestic state security is the object of analysis and not the

individual. Therefore, the presumption which advances is that

if the state is secure then the individual must feel secure and

is often used to defend a lack of consideration for women’s

security (Shepherd, 2008:55). This is reinforced by the notion

that ‘statesmen and military leaders are responsible for the

security of their states...no one is responsible for humanity’

(Waltz, 1959: 416). Such an impersonal response to security is

also replicated internationally when security is said to

incorporate ‘the human, the critical and the common’

(Shepherd, 2008:55) without specifically articulating how it

may apply to considerations relating to varying axes of

identity.

However, what can be discerned is that achieving domestic and

international security has always been defined through

militaristic means which is reinforced by Cockburn’s Continuum

of Violence (Cockburn, 2004:26) which sees militarism as a

continuing mindset that represents a states propensity to go

to war and, evolves into militarisation when ‘it is necessary

to undertake war...out of apprehension for one’s own security’

(Waltz,1967:206), thus ‘continually looking for opportunities

to take advantage of each other’ (Mersheimer,1990:53), in

seeking to shimmy up the global patriarchal structure of

states through the assertion of ascendancy. The hegemonic

masculinities played out in this system have been reinforced

by stereotypical portrayals of western states as the most

capable in influencing politics and global security, and the

East, as somewhat static and undeveloped by virtue of an

essentialised character which ‘makes the world vulnerable to

military aggression’ in the Orientalist model (Said, 1980).

However, despite the West/East distinction being an

anachronistic dichotomy, particularly in IR, given China’s

inclusion as one of the five permanent members of the United

Nations Security Council, a lack of inclusion of any

predominantly Islamic state in this composition is suggestive

that only those dominant states that associate with the

masculine vector of ‘stability’, can have a tangible say.

By analogy, society portrays a perpetual belief that the

essentialised character of women, through physiological

behaviour, renders them naturally ‘instable’ and thus

justifies their exclusion from security considerations. Such

structural inequalities that prevent inclusion therefore,

contribute to women’s insecurity but this is not a novel

articulation. In taking a subjective approach, Tickner defines

security in broad terms which require the elimination of

physical, structural and ecological violence for women

(Tickner,1997:625) in which the enactment of UN Resolution

1325 sought to make the pursuit of gender equality

relevant...to security sector reform with these objectives in

mind (Rehn and Sirleaf, 2002:3). However, the contention here

is that whilst the aims of 1325 seek to ensure that the

conduct of armed conflict itself would entail sensitivity

towards gendered violence and inequality, a lack of structural

consideration in centralised domestic and international

institutions, perpetuates insecurity for women.

This is demonstrated domestically by an analysis of the UK

Governments action plan on the incorporation of 1325 into

foreign policy, which sought to achieve the protection,

participation, prevention of harm, relief and recovery from

suffering of women in Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of

Congo and Nepal. This looked specifically at the training

needs of the military in seeking to reinforce the need to

empower women’s participation in the post-conflict rebuilding

of such states (UK National Action Plan, 2013). However, this

does not address the need for gender equality within the armed

forces; an integral institution central to the performance of

the security sector.

Furthermore, since foreign policy and debate is often gendered

then in pursuit of ostensibly achieving these objectives,

foreign intervention in countries such as Afghanistan has been

justified by reference to the need to liberate Eastern women

from oppressive regimes. Arguably, this then serves a dual

purpose in legitimising armed intrusion, firstly as a means of

enabling retributive action for terrorist atrocities carried

out by Al-Qaeda under the auspices of fighting the war on

terror and secondly, as a means by which to realign the west’s

position within the global hegemonic masculine structure. By

portraying allied states as emancipators of women globally;

they are able to demonstrate masculinity through civilisation

and control which is juxtaposed with the feminised East; who

represent the unedified oppressors of women. This is further

reinforced by women’s visible presence on the ground, as

members of allied forces which act as a propaganda tool in

achieving such parti pris. This then renders the consideration of

gender in security as purely utilitarian as opposed to

actuarial which means that women appear only to be put on the

international agenda when needed to legitimise masculine

behaviour, rather than a genuine attempt to confront

inequality. Therefore, whilst it can be suggested that the

core objectives in mainstreaming women’s equality on an

international stage has been increased by the enactment of

Resolution 1325, it appears to have been utilised for

malevolent purposes in justifying militarisation.

However, given that structural inequality domestically has

fallen outside the parameters of Res 1325, any attempt to

introduce a more explicitly gendered analysis here must begin

with a discussion of masculinity because structurally, central

institutions are largely based upon the activities and

experiences of men (Tickner, 1992:3). Thus, the gendering of

international politics is so intertwined with women’s

inequality within the military, that it renders consideration

of masculinities played out within this institution relevant

here and therefore, an analysis of gender integration in the

military is necessary in order to evaluate women’s experience.

Military experience

The state, always being in a state of conflict whether it be

war, economic or environmental renders the emancipatory value

of women’s experience as temporary; ‘for the duration of the

conflict’ (Sebesta, 1994:29) which is why issues of equality

ebb and flow. This of course is based on the premise that

women’s participation in any form of conflict is controlled by

policies which increase the recruitment of women when

necessary to achieve a military objective but, overlook the

need to maintain or exceed their inclusion in times of

relative peace by restricting integration. This type of

limitation placed upon a woman’s ability to achieve the same

quality of experience in the military underpins the suggestion

that women are not able to forge as successful military career

as their male counterpart.

A histography of traditional ideologies of women during war

have seen them as doting wives and mothers; cheering on their

male soldiers from the sidelines, which has crystallised the

narrative that women are ‘beautiful souls’ as an inapposite to

men being ‘just warriors’ (Russo, 1994:51). Although this

appears harmless type-casting, the impact of such entrenchment

has compounded the belief that women are somewhat lesser

deserving citizens than men within the social hierarchy, that

based the concept of good citizenship on ‘the right or duty to

carry arms on behalf of the political community’ (Elshtain, J,

1995:52), which in the US, became known as citizen-soldier

(D’Amico, 2000:107). In seeking to demonstrate good

citizenship but being prevented, partly through gender

stereotyping influencing policy but, mainly through home-life

commitments, women sought to become better mothers in order to

create a form of second-class citizenship; dichotomies of

hegemonic masculinities and feminities subsequently enveloped

within this overarching patriarchal structure. Furthermore,

conformity was manipulated by a ‘deviant’ stigma being

attached to anyone that repudiated this dichromatic

categorisation but, had always been permissible for women to

cross the divide in times of war.

Illustrations of women’s active participation in war

throughout the twentieth century were most notable in the

First and Second World War. During the First World War, the

Women’s Land Army was established with the aim of ensuring

food security for the country when British U-boats carrying

imported food were routinely intercepted by German forces,

meaning that women were utilised in providing agricultural

services in the absence of young men; who were conscripted to

fight on the front line, in killing the enemy. However, whilst

semantically correct in describing the Land Army as an army on

the basis that it contained upwards of 80,000 women,

performing similar labouring tasks on farms, the organisation

was a civilian one meaning that the armed forces retained its

inherently masculine constitution by ring fencing recruitment

from women through the creation of these valuable but, non-

military services.

The Second World War however did open up the possibility for

women to become conscripts in the British army, when again, in

accordance with necessity, the National Services Act 1941

permitted the conscription of childless widows and singletons

to undertake national service. However, military policy

restricted the roles for which they could apply to those of

nurses, clerks, cooks and store keepers; roles not involving

combat and so chimerically, women were able to achieve

recognition as a member of the military but this fell short of

achieving citizen-soldier status. This not only entrenched

women as militarily subordinate but, continued to perpetuate

the societal repression of women.

Moreover, an analysis of the integration of women within a

contemporary British armed forces continues to support the

contention that equality within the military and thus, society

generally, is a mirage because despite 95% of the roles now

being available to women (again, inclusion being based on

need, according to Stachowitsch who states that ‘the continued

technologisation of warfare and various military interventions

made the military more dependent upon the female workforce’

(2012:306)) women are still excluded from close combat roles

which are those ‘that are primarily intended and designed with

the purpose of requiring individuals on the ground to kill the

enemy’ (MOD, 2010: Annex B). This therefore prohibits women

from being recruited into positions within the Royal Marines,

the Household Cavalry, the Royal Armoured Corps, the Infantry

and the Royal Air force Regiment.

Historically, the justification for women’s exclusion in such

roles was based upon an essentialist notion of there being a

biological limitation in women’s physiology, which results in

them having less muscle strength, less endurance and being

more injury prone than men, as well as a general

undeployability due to child bearing ability and anatomical

requirements related to health and hygiene (Maninger,

2008:10). This is however no longer offered as the official

explanation for such ostensible discrimination on the basis

that scientific research has suggested that at least 1% of

female recruits may reach the necessary level of fitness

required of these roles (British Employment, 2002;B5) and

therefore, is a policy no longer fit for purpose if the

rhetoric is to prohibit women from official combat altogether.

However, the legacy that this policy left behind further

fuelled the belief within the military that the demonstration

of physical adequacy in proving courage and valour is still a

canon determining the rankings of individuals within a

hegemonically masculine structure, which again further

exacerbates women’s integration.

Nevertheless, the pretext of the most recent explanation for

exclusion is that women’s presence within all-male units has

an effect upon their combat effectiveness which is defined as

‘the ability of that unit to carry out its assigned mission

for which cohesion is a vital factor’(MOD, 2010: Annex B).

What this really means according to Sebesta is that women have

a ‘disrupting effect on male bondings’ because they are

perceived solely as sexual objects and therefore, are likely

to distract uncontrollable men (Sebesta, 1994:32). Either that

or men as protectors of women, are likely to take risks to

tend to injured women than they are fellow men and therefore,

‘even military women are thus depicted as objects of male

protection’ through military policy (Stachowitsch, 2012:169).

Although accordingly, as the effects of women’s inclusion in

combat units cannot be measured, unless risks are taken to

include them in circumstances of high intensity which could

result in loss of life, then this provides justification for

policy retention. Furthermore, the military is one such

institution that is exempt from the provisions of the Equality

Act and therefore permits direct discrimination on the grounds

of sex, which is otherwise prohibited in other areas of public

life.2 So, ‘the effectiveness argument assumes that the

military is different from the rest of society because its

mission in providing security takes precedence over all others

and thus, is not there to grant equal rights to individuals’

(Carreiras and Kummel, 2008;31). This further demonstrates the

intertwinement and complicit perpetuation of inequality not

only in the military but also, throughout other state

institutions such as Parliament and the Government.

Furthermore, it can be highlighted that as a corollary to the

effectiveness argument being used to justify female exclusion,

‘unit effectiveness’ was also advanced as a reason to exclude

homosexuals from the military pre-2000 (MOD, 1996:7), on the

basis that ‘it may jeopardize the masculine identity of

servicemen and the military institution itself’ (Bulmer,

2 Schedule 3, part 1, para 4(1) Equality Act 2010.

2013:141). However, this policy was removed despite a lack of

‘evidence’ in proving that the inclusion of gay and lesbian

soldiers in units would impact upon effectiveness; why

therefore, the reticence with women? In turn, legislation does

not permit the military to discriminate directly against the

characteristic of sexual orientation on ‘combat effectiveness’

but, it does against those having undergone gender re-

assignment; 3 reinforcing the point that some differences are

easier to overcome than others in patriarchal institutions

which are fiercely protective of their masculinity. Such a

structure is then sensitive to the capabilities of femininity

and feminisation, which is almost synonymous with transgender,

in inducing megalomanic challenge.

However, in re-defining the military strategy in Afghanistan

as population-centric, counter-insurgency rather than all-out

combat then this seeks to dispel the subordination of women

both subjectively and perceptively. Firstly, by virtue of the

aims of population-centrism in ‘winning hearts and minds’

(Dyvik, 2013:2) then by putting women soldiers on the ground,

to engage with local communities in empowering them to repel

oppressive Taliban regimes, makes them feel part of ‘front

line’ soldiering, Secondly, this serves to render women

soldiers a visible presence which ‘continues the discourse of

liberation set forth in the invasion of Afghanistan’ (Dyvik,

2013:3). However, what this appears to represent is just

another example of how women are manipulated both as

3 ibid para 4(2)(c).

practitioners and targets alike, through patriarchal

domination.

Cynthia Enloe suggests however, that to concentrate on full

military integration as representing the epitome of liberation

for women in society is unnecessary when states simply use it

to legitimise intervention (Enloe, 2013) but, it becomes

necessary in demonstrating the consequences that a lack of

integration can have on other areas of insecurity, such as

economics (Tickner, 1997:628). Given that only 2% of the total

number of women currently serving in the British Armed forces

are of officer rank or above and that statistic is reduced to

0.63% where women also intersect with race (UK Government,

2009). The fact that none are present in high office where

achievement is directly measured against operational

experience in combat, demonstrates that structural limitations

do have direct consequences on economic equality, with women

in the military typically earning less. Such structural

inequalities seek to perpetuate an organisational culture

which renders a woman’s experience of the military,

challenging. Sexual harassment, boundary heightening and

social isolation are all manifestations of a lack of

integration in the military (Hanna, 1994:60). Sexual

harassment is something that, according to Morkos is perceived

by women as very broad and requires constant vigilance, which

is not conducive to unit cohesion (Morkos, 1990:73) but, this

attitude provides a demonstration of an ideology percolated by

structural inequalities as it poses sexual harassment as a

military judgment rather than a legal one and suggests a

propensity to not take such allegations seriously.

Furthermore, boundary heightening can lead to women having

feelings of isolation through ‘behaviours carried out by

dominant group members which emphasize similarities and

educate differences of token members so as to exclude them’

(Hanna, 1994:64) and this is usually done through the measure

of physical ability, where women and less dominant men are

often subjugated. This can then impact upon self esteem

through the denial of social relationships with peers, leading

to women seeking out intra-socialisation with other women

outside of the unit; not only therefore creating dichromatic

social orders but, deepening voids in unit effectiveness.

Women’s responses to organisational constraints differ

according to which typology they subscribe within military

integration strategies according to Carrerias (1998:175). Her

study of Portugese and Dutch women officers conclude that

‘conformity’, which is a belief that ‘women should avoid

exposure and excessive visibility in adapting to existing

rules’ is by far the most frequent strategy. However, despite

no empirical data in support of this contention in the UK

military, conformity appears to be inferred when considering

an interview conducted with Nicky Moffat, the highest ranking

female officer in the British army, who said that to progress

in the armed forces, women should not ‘play the gender card’

(Hopkins, 2011). This is suggestive that women must not

challenge hyper-masculine behaviour but, simply accept their

position in the hegemonic structure which requires them to

work doubly hard to have achievements recognised in order to

earn respect of their male colleagues, through performance

(Stachowitsch, 2012:315).

However, it may be proffered to suggest that ‘assimilation’ is

a major contender for the most likely integration strategy

adopted by women in the British military. This results in

women adopting stereotypical masculine traits both in

behaviour and in physical appearance so as to seek reward from

dominant peers as a form of acceptance; a phrase which can be

termed ‘masc’ing’ up’. This can involve increasing physical

strength, partaking in excessive drinking, engaging in the use

of derogatory language, complicity in over-sexualised

behaviour and a propensity to engage in sexual activity with

other women; although acknowledgement is given to the

restrictions on analysing that which is attributable to a

woman’s own agency and that, to assimilation in the absence of

qualitative data.

The media also play an important role in reinforcing gender

ideologies of women in the military through the use of a wide

spectrum of positive and negative images in assessing women’s

performance. When women do things well such as when Private

Michelle Norris was awarded the Military Cross for exemplary

gallantry during active operation, the press utilise words

such as ‘brave’, ‘proud’ and ‘warrior-like’ (Daily Mail,

2005); almost endorsing their inclusion. However, when things

go wrong then the media seek to divert attention away from the

structural inadequacies of the institution but, focus upon a

woman’s personal attributes (usually mental ability) to cope

with the rigours of army life, seeking to ‘provide proof of

women’s unsuitability for combat’ (Stachowischi, 2012:169).

Such was the depiction of Lynddie England who was portrayed as

a sexual deviant and who engaged in the torturous acts on

Iraqi prisoners for pleasure, thus scapegoating the failings

of the US military in permitting such a conducive

organisational culture.

Assimilation in Society

Outside of the ostensibly aseptic military environment, the

conditions for structural equality are somewhat tempered but,

are still homologous despite the aspiration for the

application of ‘gender perspectives in all policies...so that

before decisions are taken, an analysis is made of the effects

on women and men respectively’ (UN, 1995:80). This process of

gender mainstreaming in institutions and organisations,

particularly within UK society is largely driven by the

statutory requirements placed upon them to ensure that women

(who may also intersect with other axes of identity) are not

treated less favourably than others in recruitment practices

or general conditions of service, including selection for

promotion. However, whilst internal policies and procedures

may seek to ‘create a workplace climate in which women would

be treated with fairness and respect’ (Enloe, 2004:4), gender

ideologies about femininity and masculinity within the

workforce still associate women with the private sphere of

‘home’ and men within the public sphere of ‘work’, which

disseminate into eternalising perceptions of gender

normativity on a woman’s lack of ability to undertake

positions of leadership. This perpetuates an androcentric

organisational climate which naturally then inhibits the full

integration of women who are still considered to represent a

minority in the workforce, particularly areas of Government,

National Security Agencies and financial institutions where

women are disproportionately represented in high office.

Therefore, boundary heightening in climates that are still

deeply masculinised will ostracise women from being accepted

into its inner sanctum and thus create unequal experiences of

teamworking, despite aspirations in equality and diversity

policies seeking to eliminate such inequality. Carrieras notes

that attitudes towards difference in masculine working

environments, manifest themselves in placing unnecessary

attention upon the performance of the person carrying out that

role, in being constantly assessed against the performance of

those considered to be ranked within the latent, hierarchal

structure. Furthermore, the psychodynamics of its members

involve a belief that rewarding ‘others’ outside this sanctum,

with promotion is a manifestation of positive discrimination

and not ability; thus further deepening the lack of

homogenization.

In addition, as ‘civil society has become more masculine in

character; becoming more competitive, hierarchical, aggressive

and rigid’ then thematically, the acting out of the feminine

seems to be absorbed by the requirement for performance of the

masculine, in constituting ability. Thus the notion of

equality is a subjectivity through which achievement is

measured by the ability of the assimilationist to fully

integrate into an organisation, whilst being required to

denounce certain feminities which are perceived as being

incompatible with power and success.

Conclusion

Whilst the ‘add women and stir’ approach (True, 2010:191) to

methodologies concerning the achievement of equality for women

is a tangible attempt to desensitise men to the presence of

women within the workplace. It is a virtuous circle if women

are structurally prevented from undertaking roles in certain

sections of society because it seeks to reinforce notions that

women do not have the physiological ability to perform and

thus, compete in the public sphere.

What is clear is that patriarchal performance continues to

exist, not just in the military but in domestic and

international organisations as a representation of society’s

ideologies on gender; the historical provenance of male

dominance being a difficult anthrapolical perpetuation to

break down. However, maybe patriarchy is in fact perpetuated

by the subliminal memory in man of mythological stories told

as far back as the 8th century BC, concerning the cause of the

Amazonian women warriors, who embarked upon a crusade in

exacting death, slavery and subjugation upon men (Russo,

1994:55), and that women’s integration is restricted as a way

of allaying fears about a return to times of female

domination. However, ‘preferred futures are not feminized, but

ones in which women and men participate in reducing damaging

and unequal hierarchal social structures such as gender and

race’ (Tickner, 1999:9). Yet, only if organisational

structures are truly modified by removing barriers for women,

in accessing middle and higher management position shall ‘men

begin to regard women as less different, more capable and

inevitably more equal’ (Hanna, 1994:75).

References

Books

Carrieras, H. (2008) ‘From Loyalty to Dissent: How Military

Women Respond to Integration Dilemmas’ in Carreiras, H and

Kummel, G (eds), Women in the Military and in Armed Conflict, The

Netherlands: VS Verlag.

Elshtain, J. (1995) Women and War, 2nd edn, London: University of

Chicago Press.

Cockburn, C. (2004) ‘The Continuum of Violence: A Gender

Perspective on War and Peace’ in Giles, W and Hyndman, J

(eds), Sites of Violence: Gender and Conflict Zones, London: University of

California Press.

D’Amico, F. (2000) ‘Citizen-Soldier? Class, Race, Gender,

Sexuality and the US Military’ in Jacobs, S, Jacobson, R and

Marchbank, J (eds), States of Conflict: Gender Violence and Resistance,

London: Zed Books.

Hanna, P. (1994) ‘An Overview of Stressors in the Careers of

US Servicewomen’ in Addis, E, Russo, V and Sebesta, L (eds),

Women Soldiers: Images and Realities, London: St Martin’s Press.

Maninger, S. (2008) ‘Women in Combat: Reconsidering the Case

Against the Deployment of Women in Combat-Support and Combat

Units’ in Carreiras, H and Kummel, G (eds), Women in the Military

and in Armed Conflict, The Netherlands: VS Verlag.

Rehn, E, and Sirleaf, E. (2002) Women, War and Peace: The

Independent Experts Assessment on the Impact of Armed Conflict on Women and

Women’s Role in Peace-Building, New York: UNIFEM

www.reliefweb.int/rw/lib.nsf/db900SID/LGEL (accessed 10th

December 2013).

Russo, V. (1994) ‘The Constitution of a Gendered Enemy’ in

Addis, E, Russo, V and Sebesta, L (eds), Women Soldiers: Images

and Realities, London: St Martin’s Press.

Sebesta, L. (1994) ‘Women and the Legitimation of the Use of

Force: The Case of Female Military Service’ in Addis, E,

Russo, V and Sebesta, L (eds), Women Soldiers: Images and Realities,

London: St Martin’s Press.

Shepherd, L. (2008) Gender, Violence and Security: Discourse as Practice,

London, Zed Books.

Tickner, J. (1992) Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on

Achieving Global Security, New York: Columbia University Press.

Tickner, J. (1999) Why Women Can’t Rule the World:

International Politics According to Francis Fukuyama, Oxford:

Blackwell Publishers.

True, J. (2010) ‘Mainstreaming Gender in International

Institutions’ in Shepherd, L (eds), Gender Matters in Global

Politics: A Feminist Introduction to International Relations,

London: Routledge.

Waltz, K. (1959) Man, the State and War; A Theoretical Analysis, New York:

Columbia University Press.

Journals

British Employment of Women in the Armed Forces Steering

Group. (2002) Women in the Armed Forces

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121026065214/http:

//www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/10B34976-75F9-47E0-B376-

AED4B09FB3B3/0/women_af_summary.pdf (accessed 5th December

2013).

Bulmer, S. (2013) Patriarchal Confusion? International Feminist

Journal of Politics, vol.15, no.2.

Dyvik, S. (2013) Women as ‘Practitioners’ and ‘Targets’,

International Feminist Journal of Politics,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2013.779139, (accessed 12th

December 2013).

Enloe, C. (2004) Wielding Masculinity inside Abu Ghraib:

Making Feminist Sense of an American Military Scandal, Asian

Journal of Women’s Studies, vol. 10, No. 3

Enloe, C. (2013) Combat: The Zone of Women’s Liberation? The

Progressive, www.progressive.org/combat-the-zone-of-women-and-

liberation (accessed on 4th December 2013).

Hopkins, N. (2011) Meet Nicky Moffat, the Highest Ranked Woman

in the British Army, The Guardian Newspaper,

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/11/nicky-moffat-

highest-ranking-woman-army, (accessed on 4th December 2013).

Mersheimer, J. (1990) Back to the Future: Instablility in

Europe after the Cold War, International Security, vol. 15, no.1.

Minisrty of Defence, (1996) Report of the Homosexuality Policy

Assessment Team’ http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/c801AAED-ZEFE-

4D33-A845-EFD103438BF2/0/HPAT_report_Feb_1996.pdf. (accessed

on 8th December 2013).

Ministry of Defence, (2010) Report on the Review of the

Exclusion of Women from Ground Close-Combat Roles,

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmen

t_data/file/27403/Report_review_excl_woman_combat_pr.pdf

(accessed on 8th December 2013).

Moskos, C. (1990) Army Women, The Atlantic Monthly, vol.266, no.2,

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1990/08/army-

women/306156/ (accessed on 10th December 2013).

Said, E. (1980) Islam Through Western Eyes, The Nation,

http://www.thenation.com/article/islam-through-western-eyes#

(accessed 9th December 2013).

Stachowitsch, S. (2012) Military Gender Integration and

Foreign Policy in the United States: A Feminist International

Relations Perspective, Security Dialogue, vol.43, no.4.

Stachowitsch, S. (2013) Professional Soldier, Weak Victim,

Patriotic Heroine, International Feminist Journal of Politics, vol.15,

no.2.

Tickner, J. (1997) You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled

Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists, International

Studies Quarterly, vol.41.

Waltz, K (1967) The Politics of Peace, International Studies Quarterly,

vol.11, no.3.

UK Government. (2009) Ministry of Defence Recruitment

Statistics,

www.gov.uk/government/ministry-of-defence/about/recruitment,

(accessed on 2nd December 2013).

UK National Action Plan on Women, Peace & Security,

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmen

t_data/file/259411/NAP_Review_2013.pdf (accessed on 6th

December 2013).

United Nations. (1995) Fourth World Conference on Women Action

for Equality, Development and Peace, Beijing,

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/pdf/Beijing%20full

%20report%20E.pdf (accessed 8th December 2013).