Peacemakers or Iron Ladies? A Cross-National Study of Gender and International Conflict

Schramm, Madison; Stark, Alexandra

doi:10.1080/09636412.2020.1763450

Cited by 44 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Future research can address several other questions. Our model focuses on the sex and gender of the national leader, but the sex and gender of other elements of the national leadership are also important (Koch and Fulton, 2011;Schramm and Stark, 2020), especially as female national leaders pave the way for women to hold cabinet positions, like defense minister, in the future (Barnes and O'Brien, 2018). Further theoretical work can explore how gendered war payoffs can shape war efforts, following on informal work that considers the link between cultures of honor, which punish defeat, and the conflict process (Dafoe and Caughey, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A's refusal to learn, to attribute a reputation for hawkishness to female leaders that fight, emerges not because of cognitive limitations or behavioral pathologies but because of a sexist leader's reticence to make efficient screening proposals. Female leaders struggle to convince others of their resolve because they're not part of the traditional in-group (see Schramm and Stark, 2020), and our model shows how this works in crisis bargaining. A female leader's choice to fight is less informative to any audience-even a non-sexist one-given a sexist opponent's willingness to risk war.…”

Section: Disputes Escalation and Reputationsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Nonetheless, much quantitative IR work on gender rests on essentialist assumptions by examining differences between women and men, which are sex rather than gender categories (e.g., Horowitz et al, 2015, Koch andFulton, 2011; and see Cohen and Karim, 2021 for a critique). By contrast, we explore the effects of gender by modeling sexist attitudes among women's opponents (see also Post and Sen, 2020;Schramm and Stark, 2020).…”

Section: Gender Game Theory and Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Gender, sexism, and war

Reiter

Wolford

2021

Journal of Theoretical Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyze a model of leader gender and crisis bargaining under asymmetric information. There are no essential differences between the sexes in their willingness to use force, but sexist leaders receive a subjective boost for defeating female leaders in war and pay a subjective cost for defeat. We show that this hostile sexism can lead to war for two reasons, first by offering sufficient private benefits to make peace impossible and second by influencing an uninformed leader’s willingness to risk war. We also show that (a) the effect of leader sex on disputes and war depends on the distribution of power, (b) sexist leaders may initiate disputes at less favorable distributions of power than non-sexist leaders, and (c) sexist leaders adopt bargaining strategies that make it difficult for women to cultivate and benefit from reputations for resolve, even in the absence of sex differences in the willingness to use force.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Disputes Escalation and Reputationsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Gender Game Theory and Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gender, sexism, and war

Reiter

Wolford

2021

Journal of Theoretical Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…And despite little evidence that women are more “peaceful” foreign policymakers than men (one study found that Albright’s presence had no pacifying effect on U.S. foreign policy), there is a prevailing stereotype that female leaders will use less force (Lasher 2005). In fact, as two studies have found, the exact opposite may be true (Post and Sen 2020; Schramm and Stark 2020).…”

Section: Gender and Negotiationmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…2. 2. It is important to note that almost all the studies analyzed in these meta‐analyses, and mentioned in this section of the article, involve dyadic economic bargaining situations in Western contexts. There are very few studies on the role of gender in international dispute resolution (Post and Sen 2020; Schramm and Stark 2020). Some have noted the need to evaluate how gender has impacted the negotiation practices of Secretaries of State (Menkel‐Meadow 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Madeleine Albright: Negotiating Gender at Home and Abroad

Davies¹

2022

Negotiation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the first female United States Secretary of State, Madeleine K. Albright redefined the role of America’s top diplomat. While Albright’s prolific foreign policy achievements are well documented, there has been little analysis of the negotiation style that contributed to her accomplishments. This article argues that Secretary Albright’s negotiation style was formed, at least in part, by the need to respond to her counterparts’ gender‐based stereotypes. Albright managed those stereotypes in two ways: by leveraging them in her negotiations, and by framing her assertiveness so as to avoid a counter stereotypic backlash. How exactly she did so is the focus of this article. Using two case studies from Albright’s tenure as Secretary of State, I draw generalizable lessons for other negotiators looking not only to mitigate, but also exploit, the gender‐based assumptions that they face.

show abstract

Experts, activists, and girl bosses of the nuclear apocalypse: feminisms in security discourse

Egeland

Taha

2023

Z Friedens und Konflforsch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Having long been regarded as irrelevant to the high politics of foreign affairs, feminism and gender equality have in recent years gained increased attention in international security debates, including discussions about nuclear weapons policy. Several governments have adopted official feminist foreign policy postures, international security institutions have launched inquiries into gender equity and representation, and a myriad of security actors have enthusiastically embraced the language of women’s empowerment. Mapping the various modes of purported feminist practice on display in the nuclear policy field, we find that being “pro women” has become a sought-after rhetorical asset on both sides of the nuclear weapons debate. Reflecting wider trends in the corporate world, constituents of the nuclear weapons industry have increasingly embraced liberal feminist language and workplace diversity goals. These practices, we suggest, have helped challenge the perception of the nuclear industry as overly masculine, aiding recruitment to, and overall political legitimation of, the nuclear weapons enterprise. This development is significant because it functions to undercut the association between feminism and opposition to nuclear weapons, thus complicating efforts to advance arms control and disarmament through feminist interventions.

show abstract

Peacemakers or Iron Ladies? A Cross-National Study of Gender and International Conflict

Cited by 44 publications

References 0 publications

Gender, sexism, and war

Gender, sexism, and war

Madeleine Albright: Negotiating Gender at Home and Abroad

Experts, activists, and girl bosses of the nuclear apocalypse: feminisms in security discourse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About