Hurley, Matthew 2018. The ‘genderman’: (re)negotiating militarized masculinities when ‘doing gender’ at NATO. Critical Military Studies, Vol. 4, Issue. 1, p. 72.
Harel-Shalev, Ayelet Huss, Ephrat Daphna-Tekoah, Shir and Cwikel, Julie 2017. Drawing (on) women’s military experiences and narratives – Israeli women soldiers’ challenges in the military environment. Gender, Place & Culture, Vol. 24, Issue. 4, p. 499.
Daphna-Tekoah, Shir and Harel-Shalev, Ayelet 2017. The Politics of Trauma Studies: What Can We Learn From Women Combatants' Experiences of Traumatic Events in Conflict Zones?. Political Psychology, Vol. 38, Issue. 6, p. 943.
Duncanson, Claire and Woodward, Rachel 2016. Regendering the military: Theorizing women’s military participation. Security Dialogue, Vol. 47, Issue. 1, p. 3.
Harel-Shalev, Ayelet and Daphna-Tekoah, Shir 2016. The “Double-Battle”: women combatants and their embodied experiences in war zones. Critical Studies on Terrorism, Vol. 9, Issue. 2, p. 312.
Carson, Lisa 2016. Pre-deployment ‘gender’ training and the lack thereof for Australian peacekeepers. Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 70, Issue. 3, p. 275.
Sjoberg, Laura Hudson, Heidi and Weber, Cynthia 2015. Gender and Crisis in Global Politics: Introduction. International Feminist Journal of Politics, Vol. 17, Issue. 4, p. 529.
Brown, Sara E. 2014. Female Perpetrators of the Rwandan Genocide. International Feminist Journal of Politics, Vol. 16, Issue. 3, p. 448.
Wight, Colin Hansen, Lene Dunne, Tim and Sylvester, Christine 2013. Experiencing the end and afterlives of International Relations/theory. European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 19, Issue. 3, p. 609.
Nunn, Neil 2013. ‘It can be dangerous for the uterus’: hegemonic masculinity and cooperative recycling in São Paulo, Brazil. Gender, Place & Culture, Vol. 20, Issue. 6, p. 794.
Bulmer, Sarah 2013. Patriarchal Confusion?. International Feminist Journal of Politics, Vol. 15, Issue. 2, p. 137.
Institutions such as the military and state defense organization are central to the field of international relations. Simultaneously, they represent and reify specific gender relations. This chapter centers on methodological issues for feminist researchers interested in these institutions. They are institutions of hegemonic masculinity because male bodies dominate in them, and have done so historically, and a particular form of masculinity has become the norm (Connell 1995: 77). Although many institutions of importance to international relations can be categorized as institutions of hegemonic masculinity, the defense and military organizations have a particularly strong standing. The basis for my methodological reflections is a research puzzle aimed at mapping out and making sense of the gendered practices of the Swedish military and defense organization. Examples are given throughout from the study of military and defense institutions in Sweden. My approach starts from post-structural feminism and gives weight to structural components of gender relations, reproduced when individuals perform within institutions. It follows that I see institutions in general as important for understanding gender relations, but I have a particular interest in institutions of hegemonic masculinity. Apart from feminist IR work I have found much help in organizational studies dealing with gender and sexuality (Hearn and Parkin 2001; Wahl et al. 2001; Alvesson and Billing 1997; Hearn et al. 1989). Here I suggest that gender dynamics of these institutions be studied through analysis of documents, places and narratives.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.