ABSTRACT
Feminist scholars have long explored the relationships between masculinities, femininities, and war, yet men are rarely named in Women, Peace and Security (WPS) policies, and masculinities even less commonly. Some activists in favor of bringing analysis of masculinities into WPS policies propose that a focus on reshaping masculinities and femininities as a strategy for resisting militarism is necessary to return the agenda to what they perceive as its “original” purpose of preventing war. Drawing on my personal experiences as an NGO advocate, and on participant observation and interviews with UK government officials, this article explores what we can learn from efforts to integrate a “masculinities perspective” into WPS policies. I argue that, while some language concerning men and boys and, to a lesser degree, masculinity/ies has been incorporated into these policies, this is usually done in ways that subvert the intentions of civil society actors who have advocated for this shift. As a result, these concepts have been assimilated in ways that do not challenge militarism, and indeed at times serve to normalize it. I argue that this demonstrates the limitations of WPS policies as a vehicle for pursuing feminist anti-militarist goals.
Introduction
Women, Peace and Security (WPS) is a political agenda based on foundational tensions, and whose aims, origins, and strategies are highly contested. Its accompanying international policy framework, including UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 and eight subsequent resolutions,Footnote1 calls for increased representation of women in decision making at all levels in institutions for the prevention, management, and resolution of (armed) conflict; protection of women’s human rights in conflict; and provision of humanitarian assistance, security, and justice services to meet their needs. However, WPS can be understood as a political agenda with a life beyond the UNSCRs: advocates have sought to link its principles to issues not covered by the resolutions, such as LGBT+ rights, migration, and climate change (Hagen Citation2016; Holvikivi and Reeves Citation2017; Kronsell Citation2019). The NGOs, activists, and UN staff who advocated for the adoption of UNSCR 1325 in 2000 held varying conceptualizations of WPS and its purpose. Some, such as the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), linked it to a feminist anti-militarist position, advocating for the resolution to make connections between militarism and constructions of masculinity and femininity, though this was a minority view (Cohn Citation2008; Klot Citation2015). Others, including Amnesty International, did not share this analysis of militarism, but prioritized protecting women’s rights in conflict settings and promoting their participation in conflict resolution (Cohn Citation2008; Klot Citation2015) – concerns more strongly reflected in UNSCR 1325. Feminist activists and academics taking a more anti-militarist stance have critiqued what might be described as the liberal vision of WPS enshrined in the UNSCRs as focusing on adding women into militarized structures rather than transforming how they understand and pursue international security (Otto Citation2006; Cohn Citation2008; Pratt and Richter-Devroe Citation2011; Cockburn Citation2012a), and on “making war safe for women” rather than preventing it (Weiss Citation2011). Conflict prevention has received little attention in WPS policies relative to the prevention of violence against women within conflict situations (Shepherd Citation2016; Basu and Confortini Citation2017; Basu and Shepherd Citation2018). Recent years have seen a resurgence of advocacy by NGOs such as WILPF, Women Peacemakers Program (WPP), and Saferworld arguing for WPS policies to address the social construction of masculinities as a driver of conflict, in order to advance an anti-militarist WPS agenda with greater focus on conflict prevention (WILPF Citation2015; WPP Citation2015; Saferworld Citation2015).
As a civil society activist who has advocated for WPS policies to challenge constructions of masculinities due to their implication in (re)producing militarism, in this article I draw on my own experiences, alongside those of other activists and policymakers, to explore what we can learn from these efforts. Using the UK as a case study, I argue that, while some language concerning men and boys and, to a lesser degree, masculinity/ies has been incorporated into WPS policies, this is usually done in ways that subvert the intentions of NGOs such as WILPF and WPP who have advocated for this shift as part of a strategy for realizing a more radical, anti-militarist WPS agenda. As a result, the assimilation of these concepts does not challenge militarism, and indeed at times normalizes it. I argue that, given the investment of powerful states such as the UK in militarism and the marginality of WPS to their national security policies, there is limited potential for references to masculinities in WPS policies to effectively challenge militarism.
Throughout this article, I use the term “masculinities perspectives” to refer to analytical approaches that attend to constructions of masculinities as they relate to conflict and peacebuilding. This is usually promoted as part of a “gender-relational approach” that acknowledges the role of people of all genders in (de)constructing masculinities and femininities. While arguably all gender discourse is (at least implicitly) “relational” given its concern with relations between different gendered categories, within WPS policy debates the term has taken on a specific meaning, referring to an analytical stance that deliberately avoids the all-too-common conflation of “gender” with “women,” or the use of “gender” to describe categories of actors, rather than gendered norms, discourses, and structures of power (e.g., El-Bushra Citation2012, 18; Myrttinen, Naujoks, and El-Bushra Citation2014, 8; Schilling, Froese, and Naujoks Citation2018, 175). Such advocacy messages frequently emphasize widening discussions of gender to include sexual orientation and gender identity, and the importance of analyzing gender in relation to intersecting oppressions (e.g., Myrttinen, Naujoks, and El-Bushra Citation2014; Tielemans Citation2015; Watson, Wright, and Groenewald Citation2016). While feminist scholarship highlights that not only men and boys perform masculinities (Halberstam Citation1998; Zalewski Citation2000), and that the cultural coding of institutions, policies, and worldviews as masculine has profound implications for peace and security (Tickner Citation1992; Cohn Citation1993; Williams Citation2002; Hutchings Citation2008), NGO advocates of a “masculinities perspective” in WPS have focused primarily on masculinities as they are associated with putatively male bodies (e.g., Vess et al. Citation2013, 2–3; Wright Citation2014, 4; Tielemans Citation2015, 8; WPP Citation2015, 2). In this article, I use the terms “gender-relational approach” and “masculinities perspective” interchangeably because, while a gender-relational approach to WPS is usually taken to be broader than adding analysis of men and masculinity/ies, the latter is often the aspect of this approach emphasized in advocacy messages.
Men and masculinities in WPS: a present absence
While feminist academic inquiries in conflict and security studies have long explored the multifaceted relationships between masculinities, femininities, and security (e.g., Connell Citation2002; Whitworth Citation2004; Hutchings Citation2008; Kirby and Henry Citation2012; Duncanson Citation2013; Myrttinen, Khattab, and Naujoks Citation2017; Duriesmith Citation2017a), men are rarely explicitly referenced in WPS policies, and masculinities even less commonly. In the international policy framework on WPS, men, boys, and masculinities are notable by their absence (Cohn, Kinsella, and Gibbings Citation2004, 137; Otto Citation2006, 168; Shepherd Citation2008, 116–117; Cockburn Citation2012a, 55; Myrttinen Citation2019b, 89–91). Of the nine UNSCRs on WPS, only UNSCRs 2106, 2242, and 2467 mention men or boys explicitly. Resolution 2106 references them as victims of sexual violence and as partners to be enlisted in preventing violence against women and girls, while Resolution 2242 recommends their engagement in efforts to promote women’s participation in conflict prevention and resolution. The latest resolution, UNSCR 2467, goes further, urging states to “challenge cultural assumptions about male invulnerability to [sexual] violence” (UN Security Council Citation2019), perhaps indicating an emerging willingness to broach the topic of masculinities. Of course, men and boys have always been present in the agenda, both literally (as policymakers, diplomats, etc.) and implicitly in policy discourses (usually as perpetrators of violence), with attendant assumptions about masculinities. Yet in policy documents they are usually invisible: an unmarked category.
WPS policies such as UNSCRs and National Action Plans (NAPs) – the primary policy tool for codifying states’ plans for implementing WPS commitments – largely treat “men” and “women” as fixed, biological categories that are given, not produced (Otto Citation2006, 160; Shepherd Citation2008, 117–121).Footnote2 The 2015 UN Global Study on Women, Peace and Security (Coomaraswamy Citation2015), based on extensive global consultations with governments and civil society, contains just nine references to masculinity/ies in 417 pages, and none to femininities.Footnote3 Arguably, the many policy statements advocating the development and expansion of available socially acceptable roles for women – such as by increasing participation in legislatures, peace negotiations, or peacekeeping missions – invoke a desire to reshape femininities, without naming them. While references to reconstructing masculinities are also sometimes implicit, they occur less frequently.
Why does the invisibility of masculinities in WPS policies matter? Feminist activists and academics have demonstrated how patriarchal constructions of masculinities and femininities sustain militarism (Enloe Citation1983, Citation1993; Reardon Citation1985; Cohn Citation1993; Goldstein Citation2001; Cohn and Ruddick Citation2004; Theidon Citation2009; Barry Citation2011), understood here as a system of beliefs and practices that regard (preparation for) war as normal and inevitable (Mann Citation1987).Footnote4 These arguments typically implicate the valorization of particular constructions of masculinity, such as those that link manliness to violence and domination, and hierarchies of value elevating some masculinities over others and over all femininities (Cohn Citation1993; Connell Citation2002; Hutchings Citation2008; Messerschmidt Citation2010; Duncanson Citation2013). Feminists have argued that patriarchal gender norms, combined with other global structures such as capitalism, racism, and coloniality, play a role in causing, or at least normalizing and legitimizing, militarism and war (Reardon Citation1985; Cockburn Citation2010; Duriesmith Citation2017a). Based on this understanding, feminist scholars and activists have advocated for changing the content of what is considered to be masculine, and/or eradicating hierarchies of value between and among masculinities and femininities, as a means of undermining militarism and contributing to conflict prevention (e.g., Connell Citation2002; Otto Citation2006; Duncanson Citation2013; Wright Citation2014; WPP Citation2015), and propose various visions for an alternative, feminist approach to international politics based on equality, empathy, and solidarity (e.g., Tickner Citation1992, 127–144; Sylvester Citation1994; WILPF Citation2015; Aggestam, Bergman Rosamond, and Kronsell Citation2019). Not all of those who support increased attention to masculinities in WPS policies and activities hold an anti-militarist position, and I will go on to discuss other arguments that have been made; however, the central concern of this article is what governments’ responses to this advocacy tell us about the potential for WPS policies to advance an anti-militarist agenda.
Explicitly feminist, anti-militarist WPS advocates such as WILPF have long advocated for the transformation of masculinities to be part of the WPS agenda. However, others have more recently started or stepped up lobbying in this area. The Netherlands-based international NGO (INGO) WPP, for example, worked with partners around the world to implement programs challenging patriarchal masculinities as a peacebuilding endeavor (see WPP Citation2010, Citation2014, Citation2015). International peacebuilding NGOs such as Conciliation Resources, International Alert, and Saferworld have also made the promotion of a relational approach core to their gender advocacy (see WPP, Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict, Conciliation Resources, and Government of the Netherlands Citation2013; Myrttinen, Naujoks, and El-Bushra Citation2014; Wright Citation2014). Meanwhile, NGOs working under the “engaging men and boys for gender equality” rubric, traditionally focused on engaging men in advocacy and programs on women’s rights issues such as domestic violence and reproductive rights, have begun addressing armed conflict and peacebuilding (e.g., MenEngage Alliance Citation2015; WILPF Citation2015; Keedi, Yaghi, and Barker Citation2017). Calls for a gender-relational approach have resulted in the adoption of the “Gender, Peace and Security” (GPS) label by some NGOs (e.g., Conciliation Resources, International Alert, and Saferworld Citation2015), calls for a combined “WPS + GPS” agenda (De Jonge Oudraat and Brown Citation2017), and even discussion of a new “Men, Peace and Security” agenda (US Institute of Peace Citation2013).Footnote5
Little has been written about how these messages have been received by policymakers, or how efforts to integrate a masculinities perspective into WPS policies have fared. NGOs have published extensive guidance on incorporating questions about masculinities, femininities, and intersectionality into practical methodologies for conflict analysis (Tielemans Citation2015; Watson, Wright, and Groenewald Citation2016; Wright and Close Citation2019). Important work has also been done to document what it means to adopt a gender-relational approach in on-the-ground programming (El-Bushra Citation2012; Myrttinen, Naujoks, and El-Bushra Citation2014; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] Citation2019). While it is difficult to identify documented peacebuilding programs that have explicitly sought to reshape masculinities as a strategy for resisting militarism, some analysis has been done on how existing programming models might be adapted for such a purpose, including educational and consciousness-raising work with people of all genders to change attitudes and behaviors relating to masculine norms, and advocacy work to address societal structures that hold gender norms in place (Wright Citation2014). David Duriesmith (Citation2017b) highlights some pitfalls of introducing a masculinities perspective to WPS programming via the neoliberal “good men industry.” I aim to build on this (largely programming-focused) work by contributing reflections on efforts to introduce a gender-relational approach into policy, using the development of the UK NAP 2018–2022 as a case study.
NGOs employ a variety of arguments in favor of a gender-relational approach to WPS policy. I organize them into four broad categories: (1) “men as allies” arguments, which emphasize the need to leverage men’s power in order to achieve gender equality; (2) “male vulnerabilities” arguments, which highlight how patriarchal gender norms harm men and boys in conflict; (3) strategic arguments, which promote relational approaches as a means to move WPS up the international policy agenda; and (4) anti-militarist arguments, which promote the transformation of masculinities as a means to prevent violent conflict. These arguments interlink, and advocates usually employ them in combination. Taking each of them in turn, I examine what the responses to this advocacy tell us about the prospects of integrating gender-relational approaches in WPS policy and what this may mean for actors seeking to use those policies to promote an anti-militarist feminist agenda.
Methods
This article draws upon three sources: (1) personal experience doing advocacy with governments to promote a masculinities perspective in WPS; (2) participant observation and semi-structured interviews with UK government officials; and (3) close reading of NGO advocacy briefings and policy reports.
In my previous role at an INGO, I spent considerable time advocating for a gender-relational approach to the WPS agenda, with both NGOs and policymakers. My colleagues and I published policy reports and organized advocacy events promoting the message that policy and programming on WPS should challenge masculinities that sustain militarism. This article draws on my experiences discussing the topic with policymakers from a variety of governments and multilateral organizations, and delivering training across a range of contexts to NGOs, activists, and government officials on masculinities and peacebuilding. Furthermore, as part of a study examining organizational cultures in policymaking spaces, I spent three months in 2017 doing participant observation at the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) while assisting with the development of the UK NAP on WPS 2018–2022. I conducted semi-structured interviews with civil servants from the FCO, the Department for International Development (DFID), and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) who work on WPS, in which I asked them about the place of masculinities within the agenda. Some quotations from these conversations are included below.Footnote6
I use the UK context as a case study, then, to explore how conversations about adopting a gender-relational approach to WPS have played out, and how they have shaped policy development. While I do not suggest that UK policy processes and discussions are representative of those taking place in other contexts, my experiences doing advocacy in Europe and the US, and conversations with other advocates, suggest that similar issues have arisen elsewhere.
Four arguments for a masculinities perspective
The typology I present in this section is not exhaustive, but aims to describe how some of the more prevalent lines of argument have been received by policymakers and policy influencers. I explore how each argument is framed, how it has been incorporated (or not) into WPS policy language, and the forms of resistance it has encountered. I do not wish to trace a simple causal link between the deployment of a certain argument and the emergence of a specific form of resistance; as my analysis will show, advocates presenting one argument often find it elicits counter-arguments that seem to respond to another. By structuring the discussion in this way, I hope to shed light on the multiple, interlinked conversations taking place between and among policymakers and NGOs.
“Men as allies” arguments
Given the centrality of women’s human rights to the WPS agenda, arguments for considering masculinities in its implementation are, unsurprisingly, often made on the basis that men’s engagement is necessary for fulfilling women’s rights. This argument starts from the position that (some) men’s positions of structural power in society must be leveraged by enlisting them as allies in the struggle for gender equality. For example, the US Institute of Peace (USIP) frames men as an “untapped resource in promoting gender equality, peace, and stability,” calling on policymakers to “identify concrete ways that men can be allies in the Women, Peace, and Security agenda” (USIP Citation2013, 2, 10). Similarly, Women for Women International explains its decision to launch programs working with men and boys on the basis that the charity’s work on women’s empowerment would be ineffective unless male leaders began to advocate for women’s rights (Schmidt Citation2017).
Where men are explicitly named in WPS policies, it is often in this capacity as allies, and in this respect this argument is perhaps one of the most successful in its aims. As noted earlier, UNSCRs 2106 and 2242 both frame them in this way. However, this language has been criticized as not going far enough; “engaging men and boys” does not necessarily entail an interrogation or revision of masculinities or men’s relationships with them (WPP Citation2015; Wright Citation2015; Duriesmith Citation2017b). It is possible to engage men and boys in gender equality work in ways that ultimately shore up their privilege, through language that constructs men as protectors of women, or by rewarding men for small acts of solidarity that do not involve giving up power over women, often entailing work that women have been doing for years with little recognition or recompense (de Vries Citation2010; Flood Citation2015; Duriesmith Citation2017b; Pierotti, Lake, and Lewis Citation2018; Myrttinen Citation2019a). Given these risks, advocates have pushed for explicit mention of masculinities, and not only of men and boys as a category of actors.
Experience from the UK context is instructive in demonstrating how this mismatch can come about. Some UK-based NGOs have advocated for the government to include language in successive UK NAPs that addresses the construction of masculinities (Saferworld Citation2011, Citation2013; Gender Action for Peace and Security [GAPS] UK Citation2013). During the development of the UK NAP 2014–2017, the idea received agreeable responses from some government officials, yet the final document contained only a paragraph affirming that “we recognize men and boys as crucial allies and partners” (HM Government Citation2014, 2). Similarly, while references to masculinity/ies were included in draft versions of the UK NAP 2018–2022, these did not appear in the final version, though it maintained a reference to “the need to work with men and boys” (HM Government Citation2018, 5). When interviewed, UK officials described the concept of masculinities as “too complicated,” “too academic,” and “too esoteric, too high-level.” Even those who supported addressing masculinities more explicitly suggested that “people aren’t ready” and that it was “more than the bureaucracy can take.”
I observed that this reluctance to talk about masculinities was symptomatic of a wider resistance to concepts perceived as academic or complex. The organizational culture of the UK civil service values brevity and simplicity in communication, linked to time pressure and the fact that most officials are generalists, moving roles and policy areas every two to three years. However, it is important to examine what gets constructed as “complex” and why; the meanings of “masculinities” or “femininities” are arguably no more complex than those of “women,” “peace,” or “security” – all highly contested ideas in both academic and policy debates, with far-reaching consequences for public policy. In training sessions, generalist policymakers can usually grasp the ideas well enough to gain insight into why thinking about masculinities and femininities matters for their work. Some officials identified that a gradual process of education was needed. As one put it:
So we definitely need to do more on that, but I do feel like it’s a bit of a journey, so if first of all people want to talk about women and girls then that’s something, and you’ve just got to bag that … There’s an education piece to get people to understand that before you then try and apply any kind of thinking about femininities and masculinities.
There are parts of [the UK government] that fundamentally reject the idea that we’re trying to produce gender equality. Changing masculinity is not something that they would accept.
“Male vulnerabilities” arguments
These arguments typically challenge the tendency in WPS, and broader peacebuilding, development, and humanitarian policy discourses, to conflate “woman” with “victim” and “man” with “perpetrator,” so as to render men’s vulnerability to violence in conflict situations invisible (Shepherd Citation2008, 94; Dolan Citation2014b; Myrttinen, Khattab, and Naujoks Citation2017, 8–10). They argue that understandings of power relations should be based on situational analysis of each context and not preconceived assumptions about gender, creating space for understanding how patriarchy and intersecting systems of oppression render men vulnerable in a variety of ways (Myrttinen, Naujoks, and El-Bushra Citation2014; Dolan Citation2014a). Advocates highlight, for example, how the impacts of conflict-related displacement, disability, economic decline, and changes in women’s roles can lead to a loss of livelihoods and other factors often central to masculine identity (Vess et al. Citation2013; International Rescue Committee Citation2016). However, this argument has perhaps surfaced most frequently in advocacy around the prevention of, and response to, sexual violence against men and boys in conflict, which is sometimes argued to derive its potency from its effects on masculine identity (Carpenter Citation2006, 94; Dolan Citation2014a, 492; Schulz Citation2018).
Like the “men as allies” argument, this one has begun to make some headway with policymakers, through the acknowledgment of men and boys as victims/survivors of sexual violence (Kirby Citation2015). After several UNSCRs treating sexual violence as a crime committed solely against women and girls, both UNSCR 2106 and UNSCR 2467 draw attention to its perpetration against men and boys. The UK government, through its Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative (PSVI) launched in 2012, has sought to bring wider acknowledgment of the issue to international policy frameworks – for example, in its drafting of the G8 Declaration on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict, which calls for comprehensive services for victims, “be they women, girls, men or boys” (FCO Citation2013, 2).
This shift toward bringing men into the WPS agenda as victims/survivors of sexual violence has sparked legitimate concerns among some women’s rights advocates. That male victims/survivors require specialist services with adequate funding is not in dispute; rather, critics question whether this should be part of the Women, Peace and Security agenda, and raise concerns that, if it comes from the same small pots of funding, it will divert existing, hard-won, but inadequate funding from services for female victims/survivors (e.g., Ward Citation2016, 285). They point out that the trend toward commissioning gender-neutral services can force specialist providers working with women and girls to choose between widening their focus or losing their funding (Coalition of Feminists for Social Change Citation2017).
In his discussion of the evidence surrounding this issue, David Duriesmith (Citation2017b) concludes that it is unclear whether or to what extent work with men and boys diverts resources from services for women and girls. A detailed examination of this debate is beyond the scope of this article, and, rather than assess the relative merits of each argument, I instead outline the implications of tensions around this issue for broader advocacy on gender-relational approaches to WPS. In particular, for many WPS advocates, any mention of the word “masculinities” quickly invokes these anxieties. One UK NGO advocate explained to me why their organization rarely uses the term “masculinities”:
“Masculinities” – I mean it still definitely alarms some people, because for those working on women’s rights … that still to them translates to “programming on men and boys” … which is not something that women’s rights advocates are against, I think it just comes down to the funding and the resource and the attention.
Strategic arguments
While the idea that making masculinities visible in WPS will appeal to the masculinist priorities of policymakers rings alarm bells for some, for others is it is a positive argument. Thus, a gender-relational approach has been promoted on the basis that policymakers are more likely to take it seriously. The Washington-based global network Women in International Security, for example, argues that the WPS agenda’s focus on women, while important, has contributed to its marginality (de Jonge Oudraat and Brown Citation2017). To remedy this, they contend that an expanded “women and gender” approach would be less easily dismissed by mostly male national security communities. It is hypothesized that a relational approach makes the agenda more appealing to (particularly male) policymakers. One UK government official echoed this sentiment, describing the decision to frame training for the military around “gender” rather than “women”:
When they put together their training package and they tried a few different things but they ultimately didn’t call their training serial “Women, Peace and Security,” they call it … “Gender in Conflict and Sexual Violence” or something, it’s not something that explicitly references women. … They clearly think that if you tell them that they’re working on women, they will not get it, or they will not take it as seriously as if you couch it in “gender.”
However, in the masculinist context of international politics, where that which is coded masculine is generally seen as more serious and important than that which is coded feminine (Cohn Citation1993; Hooper Citation2001; Cohn and Enloe Citation2003), using masculinities to bring men on board with the agenda raises considerable risks. It is perhaps not surprising that some officials participating in WPS training have taken sessions on masculinities as an opportunity to raise questions such as “Why do we always talk about women so much?,” sometimes arguing that gender equality agendas perpetrate injustices against men. With increased talk about masculinities in WPS policy discourses in recent years, Cynthia Enloe (Citation2015) has posed the question, “Is masculinities now going to trump any genuine interest in taking women seriously? … [D]o you have to show that you are doing work on masculinities in order to be … taken seriously in the field and corridors of policymaking?” In light of the tendency among some in the policy world toward embracing new fads at the expense of existing commitments, these concerns suggest that cloaking women’s rights in the “more serious” mantle of a gender-relational approach as a means of moving them up the policy agenda has the potential to backfire, invoking all of the concerns mentioned above in relation to resource allocation.
Thus far, the lack of uptake of masculinities perspectives in WPS policies suggests that this eventuality has not (yet) materialized. Yet, these experiences show that the risk is present, whether or not the argument for a gender-relational approach is explicitly framed in these terms.
Anti-militarist arguments
I outlined the key features of the anti-militarist argument for a masculinities perspective on WPS earlier in this article. While this perspective is more apparent in the academic literature on WPS, it also appears in NGO advocacy messages. WPP, for example, argued that “Integrating a masculinities perspective in the WPS agenda helps to uncover the gendered roots of armed conflict, and to redefine peace and security from a holistic gender perspective” (Citation2015, 3). Similarly, the US Institute of Peace argues that “long-term peace and stability can only be achieved by understanding how militarized male identities are constructed and how they can be deconstructed” (Vess et al. Citation2013, 10).
Of the four arguments considered here, this one has been perhaps the least well received by policymakers. When asked why the concept of masculinities had not been referenced in the UK NAP, some of the officials I interviewed framed their objections as a response to the anti-militarist argument. One UK official, for example, immediately linked the idea of masculinities to the role of the military:
I’ve heard a lot about negative masculinities in the armed forces of countries. But it’s meant to be terrifying. They’re soldiers … it’s all part of defeating the enemy. … So I think if you take away aggression, which is a necessary part of what the armed forces do, what is negative masculinity? I don’t know.
Postcolonial and feminist scholars have highlighted how colonialism has relied on narratives about hypermasculinized (or sometimes feminized) racialized men who need to be “civilized” by white men, and sometimes women (e.g., Spivak Citation1988; Sinha Citation1995; Stoler Citation2010), and there is a danger that discourses around masculinities and WPS may serve to reproduce such constructions, substituting colonial administrators and missionaries with modern-day aid workers (Wright Citation2014, 37; Duriesmith Citation2017b, 6, 10; Myrttinen Citation2019a, 6). In some instances, NGOs advocating for a masculinities perspective in WPS acknowledge this risk in their advocacy messages, and/or highlight the need to think about intersections of gender, race, and class, and address the relationships between gender norms and militarism in the minority world (e.g., Vess et al. Citation2013, 7; Wright Citation2014, 37). The frosty reception with which that message is met, however, raises the risk that policymakers either reject the call to consider masculinities altogether or adopt a colonial approach to integrating masculinities into WPS policy. This would reinforce the wider trend of minority-world WPS policies framing the world as though, in Laura Shepherd’s words, “problems occur ‘elsewhere,’ but solutions can be found ‘here’” (Citation2016, 325). Indeed, it has been argued that the ordering of masculinities into racialized hierarchies is already implicit in WPS discourses which reinforce logics of white masculinist protection (Pratt Citation2013; Parashar Citation2019). Perhaps, then, efforts to make masculinities visible in WPS policies may just make those meanings (slightly) more explicit. In the context of the UK NAP, officials chose not to include direct references to masculinity/ies, but the experiences outlined here demonstrate how this tendency is present in policy discourses, if not always in policy documents.
This implicit distinction between “legitimate” militarism and other “illegitimate” forms is evident in how analysis of masculinities is applied to some types of violence and not others. It is notable that where governments have gone beyond a call to “engage men and boys” and explicitly invoked a need to address masculinity/ies in WPS policy, it is almost always in reference to preventing sexual and gender-based violence and not in relation to other forms of violence that are more accepted as legitimate wartime practices (e.g., FCO Citation2014). This implicit distinction may explain why, while the (conflict-focused) UK NAP only goes so far as to “work with men and boys,” the UK’s (development-focused) Strategic Vision for Gender Equality allows one mention of masculinity, by way of explaining men’s “sexual behaviour or violence” (DFID Citation2018, 8). Similarly, UNSCR 2467 critiques “cultural assumptions” about men’s invulnerability to sexual violence, but does not address how the same constructions of masculinity may help to produce wartime violence, sexual or otherwise.
Considering these experiences, do advocates of a gender-relational approach face a choice between outright refusal by policymakers or a colonial version that problematizes masculinities “over there” and not “here,” or when they are weaponized in the form of sexual violence but not through high-tech military equipment? Thus far, it would appear so. If bringing a masculinities perspective to WPS was intended by organizations such as WILPF, WPP, and Saferworld as a means of introducing anti-militarist ideas by the back door, its success in the policy sphere has been limited. I now turn to the question of what this means for the competing conceptualizations of WPS I outlined earlier.
Discussion and conclusions
While a masculinities perspective has been advocated as an antidote to militarism, the experiences outlined here show that it can be incorporated in ways wholly compatible with militarism, including by translating it into an “engaging men and boys” frame that fails to challenge structural inequality or reshape masculine norms, or applying it selectively to reinforce a discursive distinction between (what are implicitly framed as) “progressive” masculinities exhibited by minority-world governments championing WPS and aberrant masculinities of racialized men joining non-state armed groups or “hostile” state militaries. Just as WPS policy discourses already implicitly cite hierarchies of masculinities inflected with raced and classed meanings, they can do so more explicitly by making “masculinities” visible. This resonates with Anna Stavrianakis’ analysis of “liberal militarism” in the context of the arms trade, which highlights how, by constructing liberal forms of militarism as moral, responsible, and legitimate compared with “illiberal” forms, policymakers in the UK and US are able to “see the problem of armed violence as separate from the types of arms transfers and war making they are engaged in” (Citation2016, 853). Any trend toward integrating masculinities perspectives into WPS policy in ways that reinforce this discourse would serve to legitimate, rather than undermine, liberal militarism.
Thus, advocacy (partially) animated by anti-militarist critiques of the liberal conception of WPS can fall prey to the same problems it seeks to redress in that version. These challenges are not unique to efforts to promote gender-relational approaches; rather, they confirm known tensions constitutive of the WPS agenda (Kirby and Shepherd Citation2016, 392). These findings raise a further question: are WPS policies an effective vehicle for pursuing an anti-militarist feminist agenda? While a comprehensive answer is beyond the scope of this article, I suggest that their potential is limited.
The version of WPS proposed by anti-militarist feminists implies a paradigm shift in the way in which security is understood and realized. In her analysis of WPS advocacy within the UN system, Jennifer Klot (Citation2015) argues that civil society actors have laid too much of the blame for the agenda’s failings on the content of the UNSCRs and their discursive effects, paying insufficient attention to institutional impediments (cf. Otto Citation2006, 2; Cockburn Citation2012a, 55). This critique resonates in the UK context, where the potential for WPS policies to effect radical changes to the government’s approach to security are hampered by the relatively marginal position of WPS actorsFootnote8 within the foreign policy architecture, as well as the state’s political and economic investment in militarism. This echoes recent suggestions that feminist anti-militarist scholarship may underestimate the extent to which militarism is inherent to liberal democracy, and therefore overestimate the possibilities of demilitarization in such contexts (Millar Citation2016; Howell Citation2018). With this in mind, advocacy that focuses on changing the wording of WPS policies to reflect a masculinities perspective risks overestimating those policies’ effectiveness as a mechanism for challenging militarism at the heart of national security policies.
This is not to suggest that seeking changes to policy language is unimportant. One UK official indicated that a colleague’s proposal to fund a project focused on masculinities in conflict had been rejected on the grounds that UK WPS policy focuses on women and girls. International aid is not the only driver of change, but remains a major source of funds for peacebuilding work, and policy language has real power to dictate how resources are allocated. However, the pursuit of a political agenda that calls for the reconstruction of masculinities and femininities not only among racialized men in combat fatigues but also among white men and women in business suits in Westminster or Washington, DC calls for additional avenues of activism. Further work is needed to identify how this might be done effectively, but it could include, for example, an increased emphasis on making links with wider feminist, anti-militarist, and decolonial social movements, as some WPS advocates already have done (Cockburn Citation2007, Citation2012b), as well as increasing advocacy aimed at changing core national security strategies, without necessarily using the WPS framework as a medium. While my findings perhaps lend credence to the idea that, as Paul Kirby and Laura Shepherd (Citation2016, 391) put it, “the revival of a radical WPS [is] practically impossible” in light of bureaucratic obstacles, I suggest that thinking of advocacy on WPS as one part of a wider feminist anti-militarist project may offer a useful way forward.
Finally, I contend that even if the prospects of using WPS policies to further a more radical agenda are slim, the WPS policy framework remains valuable. The UNSCRs’ focus on women may not do the work that feminist anti-militarists would like, but they allow women in conflict situations to claim entitlements to services, protections, and representation, where otherwise needs may go unmet. Furthermore, as I have suggested, gender-relational approaches to WPS policies have value beyond their utility to anti-militarist agendas. While there is every reason to be wary of masculinized institutions operationalizing these concepts in ways that do not support feminist goals, there is much to be gained from designing security policies based on a contextual understanding of masculinities and femininities, and their intersections with other structures of oppression. The aforementioned consciousness-raising approaches that seek to change attitudes and behaviors relating to masculinities and femininities, already implemented by some development and peacebuilding organizations, provide a starting point for thinking about the kinds of activities WPS policies could support (see WPP Citation2010; Wright Citation2014; Duriesmith Citation2017b). While resistance is likely to be strong, to help to avoid reproducing the colonial logics critiqued here, such approaches should be used to challenge gender norms not only among marginalized communities but – perhaps especially – among those with race, class, and other privileges, and not only in “conflict-affected” contexts but also in economically and militarily powerful states, including among policymakers themselves. Beyond attitudinal and behavioral change, policymakers must take steps to reform the legal, political, social, and economic systems that reinforce patriarchal gender norms, including the neoliberal economic model that peacebuilding policies often take as given (see Duncanson Citation2016). In this sense, WPS cannot be treated as separate from wider emancipatory projects. Further, expanding upon understandings of masculinities as solely attached to male-assigned bodies, policymaking processes should aim to challenge the habitual prioritization of masculine-coded worldviews by policymakers of all genders, which can cast more just and sustainable policy options aside without due consideration (see Tickner Citation1992; Cohn Citation1993; Duncanson Citation2016). Even if WPS policy discussions are limited in their capacity to reshape wider approaches to security, they create spaces for critical conversations about contradictions between (certain readings of) WPS commitments and militarist practices. Indeed, those of us who have advocated for masculinities perspectives in WPS policies maintain a responsibility to hold policymakers to account for the problematic and oppressive ways in which this demand is sometimes taken up.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Hannah Wright
Hannah Wright is a PhD candidate in the Department of Gender Studies and a researcher at the Centre for Women, Peace and Security at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Notes
1 These are UNSCRs 1820 (2009), 1888 (2010), 1889 (2010), 1960 (2011), 2106 (2013), 2122 (2013), 2242 (2015), and 2467 (2019).
2 There are some exceptions: the Netherlands National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security 2016–2019, for example, commits to integrating analysis of gender norms and masculinities into country strategies and programs.
3 For a discussion of this, see Myrttinen (Citation2019b).
4 While the centrality of “militarism” in feminist IR scholarship has more recently been called into question (see Millar Citation2016; Howell Citation2018), I use it throughout this article because it continues to animate the particular strand of WPS advocacy with which my argument is concerned.
5 For a critique of the “Men, Peace and Security” agenda, see Ward (Citation2016, 287).
6 The opinions expressed in these interviews are those of individuals and do not represent an official UK government or UK civil service view. All identifying information has been removed to protect the anonymity of research participants.
7 The final wording of the NAP’s third Strategic Outcome, referring to “gender-based violence, particularly violence against women and girls which is the most prevalent form of gender-based violence,” is a compromise between these differing departmental positions.
8 These include WPS focal points within the FCO, the DFID, and the MOD.
References
- Aggestam, Karin, Annika Bergman Rosamond, and Annica Kronsell. 2019. “Theorizing Feminist Foreign Policy.” International Relations 33 (1): 23–39.
- Barry, Kathleen. 2011. Unmaking War, Remaking Men. Santa Rosa, CA: Phoenix Rising Press.
- Basu, Soumita, and Catia Confortini. 2017. “Weakest ‘P’ in the 1325 Pod? Realizing Conflict Prevention Through Security Council Resolution 1325.” International Studies Perspectives 18 (1): 43–63.
- Basu, Soumita, and Laura J. Shepherd. 2018. “Prevention in Pieces: Representing Conflict in the Women, Peace and Security Agenda.” Global Affairs 3 (4–5): 441–453.
- Carpenter, R. Charli. 2006. “Recognizing Gender-Based Violence Against Civilian Men and Boys in Conflict Situations.” Security Dialogue 37 (1): 83–103.
- Coalition of Feminists for Social Change. 2017. Funding: Whose Priorities? Feminist Perspectives on Addressing Violence Against Women and Girls. Accessed September 27, 2018 . http://raisingvoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Paper-4-COFEM.final_.sept2017.pdf.
- Cockburn, Cynthia. 2007. From Where We Stand: War, Women’s Activism and Feminist Analysis. London: Zed Books.
- Cockburn, Cynthia. 2010. “Gender Relations as Causal in Militarization and War.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 12 (2): 139–157.
- Cockburn, Cynthia. 2012a. “Snagged on the Contradiction: NATO, Resolution 1325, and Feminist Responses.” Women in Action 2012: 48–57.
- Cockburn, Cynthia. 2012b. Anti-Militarism: Political and Gender Dynamics of Peace Movements. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Cohn, Carol. 1993. “Wars, Wimps and Women: Talking Gender and Thinking War.” In Gendering War Talk, edited by Miriam G. Cooke and Angela Woollacott, 227–246. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Cohn, Carol. 2008. “Mainstreaming Gender in UN Security Policy: A Path to Political Transformation?” In Global Governance: Feminist Perspectives, edited by Shirin M. Rai and Georgina Waylen, 185–206. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Cohn, Carol, and Cynthia Enloe. 2003. “Conversation with Cynthia Enloe: Feminists Look at Masculinity and the Men Who Wage War.” Signs 28 (4): 1186–1207.
- Cohn, Carol, Helen Kinsella, and Sheri Gibbings. 2004. “Women, Peace and Security Resolution 1325.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 6 (1): 130–140.
- Cohn, Carol, and Sara Ruddick. 2004. “A Feminist Ethical Perspective on Weapons of Mass Destruction.” In Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction, edited by Sohail H. Hashmi and Steven P. Lee, 405–435. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Conciliation Resources, International Alert, and Saferworld. 2015. Peacebuilders’ Reflections on Gender, Peace and Security. Accessed September 27, 2018 . http://www.c-r.org/downloads/Peacebuilders%e2%80%99%20Reflections%20on%20Gender,%20Peace%20and%20Security%20-%20Joint%20submission%20-%20Alert%20Saferworld%20CR%202.pdf.
- Connell, R. W. 2002. “Masculinities, the Reduction of Violence and the Pursuit of Peace.” In The Postwar Moment: Militaries, Masculinities and International Peacekeeping, edited by Cynthia Cockburn and Dubravka Zarkov, 33–40. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
- Coomaraswamy, Radhika. 2015. Preventing Conflict, Transforming Justice, Securing the Peace: A Global Study on the Implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325. Accessed September 27, 2018 . http://wps.unwomen.org/pdf/en/GlobalStudy_EN_Web.pdf.
- De Jonge Oudraat, Chantelle, and Michael E. Brown. 2017. WPS + GPS: Adding Gender to the Peace and Security Equation. Women in International Security. Accessed September 27, 2018 . http://wiisglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/7th-WIIS-Policy-Brief-v1-11-7-17.pdf.
- De Vries, José. 2010. “Caution and Care in Engaging Men in Gender Equality.” In Together for Transformation: Men, Masculinities and Peacebuilding, published by Women Peacemakers Program, 52–54. Accessed September 27, 2018 . http://www.iansa-women.org/sites/default/files/newsviews/wpp_may_pack_2010.pdf.
- DFID (Department for International Development). 2018. DFID Strategic Vision for Gender Equality: A Call to Action for Her Potential, Our Future. Accessed September 27, 2018 . https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/689939/Strategic-vision-gender-equality.pdf.
- Dolan, Chris. 2014a. “Letting Go of the Gender Binary: Charting New Pathways for Humanitarian Interventions on Gender-Based Violence.” International Review of the Red Cross 96 (894): 485–501.
- Dolan, Chris. 2014b. “Has Patriarchy Been Stealing the Feminists’ Clothes? Conflict-Related Sexual Violence and UN Security Council Resolutions.” IDS Bulletin 45 (1): 80–84.
- Duncanson, Claire. 2013. Forces for Good? Military Masculinities and Peacebuilding in Afghanistan and Iraq. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Duncanson, Claire. 2016. Gender and Peacebuilding. Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Duriesmith, David. 2017a. Masculinity and New War: The Gendered Dynamics of Armed Conflict. London: Routledge.
- Duriesmith, David. 2017b. “Engaging Men and Boys in the Women, Peace and Security Agenda: Beyond the ‘Good Men’ Industry.” LSE Centre for Women, Peace and Security working paper. Accessed September 27, 2018 . http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/wps/2017/12/15/engaging-men-and-boys-in-the-women-peace-and-security-agenda-beyond-the-good-men-industry-david-duriesmith-112017/.
- El-Bushra, Judy. 2012. Gender in Peacebuilding: Taking Stock. International Alert. Accessed September 27, 2018 . http://www.international-alert.org/sites/default/files/Gender_TakingStock_EN_2012.pdf.
- Enloe, Cynthia. 1983. Does Khaki Become You? The Militarisation of Women’s Lives. London: Pluto Press.
- Enloe, Cynthia. 1993. The Morning After: Sexual Politics at the End of the Cold War. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
- Enloe, Cynthia. 2015. “How to Take Militarized Masculinities Seriously Without Losing Your Feminist Curiosity” (video). Keynote speech at the Critical Intersections conference, George Mason University, April 2. Accessed September 11, 2019 . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQCbpGexPsU.
- FCO (Foreign and Commonwealth Office). 2013. G8 Declaration on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict. Accessed September 27, 2018 . https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/185008/G8_PSVI_Declaration_-_FINAL.pdf.
- FCO (Foreign and Commonwealth Office). 2014. Chair’s Summary: Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict. Accessed September 27, 2018 . https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/chairs-summary-global-summit-to-end-sexual-violence-in-conflict/chairs-summary-global-summit-to-end-sexual-violence-in-conflict.
- Flood, Michael. 2015. ““Work with Men to End Violence Against Women: A Critical Stocktake.” Culture, Health and Sexuality 17 (2): 159–176.
- GAPS UK (Gender Action for Peace and Security UK). 2013. UK National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security: Gender Action for Peace and Security (GAPS) and HMG Consultation. National Action Plan Strategic Framework and Prevention and Protection Pillars, 15th October 2013. Accessed April 9, 2019 . http://gaps-uk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/UK-NAP-Workshop-Workshop-1-Prevention-and-Protection.pdf.
- Goldstein, Joshua. 2001. War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Hagen, Jamie J. 2016. “Queering Women, Peace and Security.” International Affairs 92 (2): 313–332.
- Halberstam, Judith. 1998. Female Masculinity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
- HM Government. 2014. UK National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security 2014–2017. Accessed September 27, 2018 . https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319870/FCO643_NAP_Printing_final3.pdf.
- HM Government. 2018. UK National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security 2018–2022. Accessed September 27, 2018 . https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/677586/FCO1215-NAP-Women-Peace-Security-ONLINE_V2.pdf.
- Holvikivi, Aiko, and Audrey Reeves. 2017. “The WPS Agenda and the ‘Refugee Crisis’: Missing Connections and Missed Opportunities in Europe.” LSE Centre for Women, Peace and Security working paper. Accessed April 9, 2019 . https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/wps/2017/06/26/the-wps-agenda-and-the-refugee-crisis-missing-connections-and-missed-opportunities-in-europe-aiko-holvikivi-and-audrey-reeves-62017/.
- Hooper, Charlotte. 2001. Manly States: Masculinities, International Relations and Gender Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
- Howell, Alice. 2018. “Forget ‘Militarization’: Race, Disability, and the ‘Martial Politics’ of the Police and of the University.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 20 (2): 117–136.
- Hutchings, Kimberly. 2008. “Making Sense of Masculinity and War.” Men and Masculinity 10 (4): 389–404.
- International Rescue Committee. 2016. Investigating Protection Gaps, Needs and Responses Relevant to Single and working Syrian Refugee Men in Lebanon. Accessed September 27, 2018 . https://www.rescue.org/sites/default/files/document/464/irclebanonrefugeemensvulnerabilityassessment.pdf.
- Keedi, Anthony, Zeina Yaghi, and Gary Barker. 2017. “We Can Never Go Back to How Things Were Before”: A Qualitative Study on War, Masculinities, and Gender Relations with Lebanese and Syrian Refugee Men and Women. ABAAD, Promundo, and US Institute of Peace. Accessed September 27, 2018 . https://promundoglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/IMAGES-Study_Quali_Eng.pdf
- Kirby, Paul. 2015. “Ending Sexual Violence in Conflict: The Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative and Its Critics.” International Affairs 91 (3): 457–472.
- Kirby, Paul, and Marsha Henry. 2012. “Rethinking Masculinity and Practices of Violence in Conflict Settings.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 14 (4): 445–449.
- Kirby, Paul, and Laura J. Shepherd. 2016. “The Futures Past of the Women, Peace and Security Agenda.” International Affairs 92 (2): 373–392.
- Klot, Jennifer. 2015. The United Nations Security Council’s Agenda on ‘Women, Peace and Security’: Bureaucratic Pathologies and Unrealised Potential. PhD thesis. Accessed March 10, 2019 . http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/3101/.
- Kronsell, Annica. 2019. “WPS and Climate Change.” In The Oxford Handbook of Women, Peace and Security, edited by Sara E. Davis and Jacqui True, 726–736. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Mann, Michael. 1987. “The Roots and Contradictions of Modern Militarism.” New Left Review, I/162, March–April, 35–50. Accessed September 11, 2019 . https://newleftreview.org/issues/I162/articles/michael-mann-the-roots-and-contradictions-of-modern-militarism.
- MenEngage Alliance. 2015. “Men and Masculinities in the Women, Peace and Security Agenda.” Accessed March 13, 2018 . http://menengage.org/men-masculinities-unscr-1325wps-agenda-summary-recommendations.
- Messerschmidt, James W. 2010. Hegemonic Masculinities and Camouflaged Politics: Unmasking the Bush Dynasty and Its War Against Iraq. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
- Millar, Katharine. 2016. “Mutually Implicated Myths: The Democratic Control of the Armed Forces and Militarism.” In Myth and Narrative in International Politics: Interpretive Approaches to the Study of IR, edited by Berit Bliesemann de Guevara, 173–191. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Myrttinen, Henri. 2019a. “Stabilizing or Challenging Patriarchy? Sketches of Selected ‘New’ Political Masculinities.” Men and Masculinities 22 (3): 563–581.
- Myrttinen, Henri. 2019b. “Locating Masculinities in WPS.” In The Oxford Handbook of Women, Peace and Security, edited by Sara E. Davis and Jacqui True, 88–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Myrttinen, Henri, Lana Khattab, and Jana Naujoks. 2017. “Re-Thinking Hegemonic Masculinities in Conflict-Affected Contexts.” Critical Military Studies 3 (2): 103–119.
- Myrttinen, Henri, Jana Naujoks, and Judy El-Bushra. 2014. Rethinking Gender in Peacebuilding. International Alert. Accessed September 27, 2018 . http://www.international-alert.org/sites/default/files/Gender_RethinkingGenderPeacebuilding_EN_2014.pdf.
- OECD (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development). 2013. Gender and Statebuilding in Fragile and Conflict-Affected States. Accessed September 27, 2018 . https://www.oecd.org/dac/conflict-fragility-resilience/docs/gender_statebuilding.pdf.
- OECD (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development). 2019. Engaging with Men and Masculinities in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Settings. OECD Development Policy Papers series, no. 17. Accessed April 2, 2019 . https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/engaging-with-men-and-masculinities-in-fragile-and-conflict-affected-states_36e1bb11-en.
- Otto, Diane. 2006. “A Sign of ‘Weakness’? Disrupting Gender Certainties in the Implementation of Security Council Resolution 1325.” Michigan Journal of Gender and Law 13: 113–175. Accessed September 11, 2019. https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjgl/vol13/iss1/4/.
- Parashar, Swati. 2019. “The WPS Agenda: A Postcolonial Critique.” In The Oxford Handbook of Women, Peace and Security, edited by Sara E. Davis and Jacqui True, 829–839. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Pierotti, Rachael S., Milli Lake, and Chloé Lewis. 2018. “Equality on His Terms: Doing and Undoing Gender Through Men’s Discussion Groups.” Gender and Society 32 (4): 540–562.
- Pratt, Nicola. 2013. “Reconceptualizing Gender, Reinscribing Racial–Sexual Boundaries in International Security: The Case of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on ‘Women, Peace and Security’.” International Studies Quarterly 57 (4): 772–783.
- Pratt, Nicola, and Sophie Richter-Devroe. 2011. “Critically Examining UNSCR 1325 on Women, Peace and Security.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 13 (4): 489–503.
- Reardon, Betty. 1985. Sexism and the War System. New York: Columbia University Press.
- Saferworld. 2011. Leading the Way on Gender, Peace and Security. Accessed April 9, 2019 . https://www.saferworld.org.uk/downloads/111101%20Saferworld%20NAP%20written%20submission.pdf.
- Saferworld. 2013. Advancing Gender, Peace and Security in the New UK National Action Plan. https://www.saferworld.org.uk/downloads/pubdocs/saferworld-nap-submission-sept-2013.pdf.
- Saferworld. 2015. Reviving Conflict Prevention in 1325: Submission to the Global Study on Women, Peace and Security. Accessed September 27, 2018 . https://www.saferworld.org.uk/downloads/pubdocs/reviving-conflict-prevention-in-1325.pdf.
- Schilling, Janpeter, Rebecca Froese, and Jana Naujoks. 2018. “Just Women’ Is Not Enough: Towards a Gender-Relational Approach to Water and Peacebuilding.” In Water Security Across the Gender Divide, edited by Christiane Fröhlich, Giovanna Gioli, Roger Cremades, and Henri Myrttinen, 173–196. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Schmidt, Brita Fernandez. 2017. “Engaging Men – From Nangarhar to Hollywood.” Huffington Post, October 18. Accessed September 27, 2018 . https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/brita-fernandez-schmidt/engaging-men-from-nangarh_b_18293796.html.
- Schulz, Philipp. 2018. “Displacement from Gendered Personhood: Sexual Violence and Masculinities in Northern Uganda.” International Affairs 94 (5): 1101–1119.
- Shepherd, Laura J. 2008. Gender, Violence and Security. London: Zed Books.
- Shepherd, Laura J. 2016. “Making War Safe for Women? National Action Plans and the Militarisation of the Women, Peace and Security Agenda.” International Political Science Review 37 (3): 324–335.
- Sinha, Mrinalini. 1995. Colonial Masculinity: The ‘Manly Englishman’ and the ‘Effeminate Bengali’ in the Late Nineteenth Century. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
- Spivak, Gayatri. 1988. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, 271–313. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education.
- Stavrianakis, Anna. 2016. “Legitimising Liberal Militarism: Politics, Law and War in the Arms Trade Treaty.” Third World Quarterly 37 (5): 840–865.
- Stoler, Ann Laura. 2010. Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power: Race and the Intimate in Colonial Rule. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
- Sylvester, Christine. 1994. “Empathetic Co-Operation: A Feminist Method for IR.” Millennium 23 (2): 315–334.
- Theidon, Kimberly. 2009. “Reconstructing Masculinities: The Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration of Former Combatants in Colombia.” Human Rights Quarterly 31 (1): 1–34.
- Tickner, J. Ann. 1992. Gender in International Relations. Oxford: Columbia University Press.
- Tielemans, Sanne. 2015. Gender and Conflict Analysis Toolkit for Peacebuilders. Conciliation Resources. Accessed September 27, 2018 . http://www.c-r.org/sites/default/files/CR%20Gender%20Toolkit%20WEB.pdf.
- UN Commission on the Status of Women. 2004. The Role of Men and Boys in Achieving Gender Equality: Agreed Conclusions. Accessed September 27, 2018 . http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/csw48/ac-men-auv.pdf.
- UN Security Council. 2019. Resolution 2467. April 23. Accessed October 24, 2019. https://undocs.org/S/RES/2467.
- USIP (US Institute of Peace). 2013. “Men, Peace and Security Symposium: Agents of Change.” Accessed February 27, 2018 . https://www.usip.org/events/men-peace-and-security-symposium-agents-change.
- Vess, Joseph, Gary Barker, Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini, and Alexa Hassink. 2013. The Other Side of Gender: Men as Critical Agents of Change. US Institute of Peace. Accessed September 27, 2018 . https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR340.pdf.
- Ward, Jeanne. 2016. “It’s Not About the Gender Binary, It’s About the Gender Hierarchy: A Reply to ‘Letting Go of the Gender Binary’.” International Review of the Red Cross 98 (1): 275–298.
- Watson, Charlotte, Hannah Wright, and Hesta Groenewald. 2016. Gender Analysis of Conflict Toolkit. Saferworld and Uganda Land Alliance. Accessed September 27, 2018 . https://www.saferworld.org.uk/downloads/pubdocs/gender-analysis-of-conflict-toolkit.pdf.
- Weiss, Cora. 2011. “We Must Not Make War Safe for Women.” Open Democracy, May 24. Accessed September 27, 2018 . https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/cora-weiss/we-must-not-make-war-safe-for-women.
- Whitworth, Sandra. 2004. Men, Militarism and UN Peacekeeping: A Gendered Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
- Williams, Susan. 2002. “Conflicts of Interest: Gender in Oxfam’s Emergency Response.” In The Postwar Moment: Militaries, Masculinities and International Peacekeeping, edited by Cynthia Cockburn and Dubravka Zarkov, 85–201. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
- WILPF (Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom). 2015. “Transforming Violent Masculinities to Move the WPS Agenda Forward.” Accessed March 13, 2018 . http://www.peacewomen.org/node/95466.
- Women Peacemakers Program, Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict, Conciliation Resources, and Government of the Netherlands. 2013. Report and Recommendations: Taking UNSCR 1325 to the Next Level. Accessed September 27, 2018 . http://www.c-r.org/downloads/Report%20NY%201325.pdf.
- WPP (Women Peacemakers Program). 2010. Together for Transformation: Men, Masculinities and Peacebuilding. Accessed September 27, 2018 . http://menengage.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/TogetherforTransformation-ACalltoMenandBoys_final.pdf.
- WPP (Women Peacemakers Program). 2014. Policy Brief: Gender and Militarism. Accessed March 13, 2018 . http://www.peacewomen.org/sites/default/files/MasculinitiesPerspective-UNSCR1325.pdf.
- WPP (Women Peacemakers Program). 2015. Policy Brief: Incorporating a Masculinities Perspective in UNSCR 1325 Implementation. Accessed March 13, 2018 . http://www.peacewomen.org/sites/default/files/MasculinitiesPerspective-UNSCR1325.pdf.
- Wright, Hannah. 2014. Masculinities, Conflict and Peacebuilding: Perspectives on Men Through a Gender Lens. Saferworld. Accessed September 27, 2018 . https://www.saferworld.org.uk/downloads/pubdocs/masculinities-conflict-and-peacebuilding.pdf.
- Wright, Hannah. 2015. “Masculinities and the Women, Peace and Security Agenda: Strengthening or Watering Down?” Saferworld blog, March 19. Accessed September 27, 2018 . https://www.saferworld.org.uk/resources/news-and-analysis/post/654-masculinities-and-the-women-peace-and-security-agenda-strengthening-or-watering-down.
- Wright, Hannah, and Sophia Close. 2019. Inclusion in Practice: Examining Gender-Sensitive Conflict Analysis. Conciliation Resources. Accessed April 2, 2019 . https://www.c-r.org/sites/default/files/Inclusion%20in%20practice%20-%20Examining%20gender-sensitive%20conflict%20analysis.pdf.
- Zalewski, Marysia. 2000. “Questions About Change and the Traditional Male Approach to International Politics.” In Male Roles, Masculinities and Violence: A Culture of Peace Perspective, edited by Ingeborg Breines, Robert Connell, and Ingrid Eide, 95–104. Paris: UNESCO.