UCL DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
Undergraduate Affiliate Program in Political Studies 2008/09
POLS6008
Gender and Politics
Teaching:
10 hours of lectures, 10 hours of seminars
Credits:
0.5 Course Units/ 4 US Credits/ 7.5 ECTS Credits
Lecture Times:
TBC
Seminar Times:
TBC
Assessment:
Two 2,000 word essays (40/60%)
Essay Deadlines:
Essay One: Monday 23 February 2009 at 2pm
Essay Two: Monday 23 March 2009 at 2pm
Lecturer:
TBC
Office Hours:
TBC
Course Outline: Gender and Politics
This course provides an overview of some key topics in politics and gender. The first part of the
course includes some introductory theory, looks at the impact of gender on citizenship and
voting behaviour, and considers whether the gender of our political representatives matters, how
we might ensure that political institutions are gender balanced and what the normative
arguments about the use of positive action measures are. The second part of the course has a
more international flavour, considering women’s rights and human rights, the importance of
gender in international development, and the role of gender in armed conflict. We will also look
at gender ‘policy machinery’, such as specialist government departments and quangos
concerned with women and equality, at both the national and international level. Throughout the
course we will seek to focus on ‘gender’ rather than on ‘women’, though in most cases women
are the underrepresented sex. We will therefore often discuss women’s equality, though we will
also touch on the role of masculinity and men’s movements.
By the end of the course the students will:
 be familiar with some of the basic theories and policy questions around politics and gender;
 be able to critically assess the arguments for and against greater gender equality in different
political institutions, and the mechanisms for achieving this;
 have a sound understanding of the role of gender in civil society and political participation;
 understand some of the key issues regarding gender in international relations, particularly
with respect to development and to conflict;
 have been exposed to the arguments of key commentators on each of the above points;
1

have studied in depth at least two questions in politics and gender, and be able to
communicate these through essays and/or presentations.
Course Structure
Week 1
History of feminism, feminist political thought and masculinism (extended lecture)
Week 2
Gendering politics
Week 3
Gender and political behaviour
Week 4
Women’s representation in elected office: does it matter?
Week 5
Quotas, positive discrimination and positive action
Week 6
Gender policy machinery and ‘mainstreaming’
Week 7
Gendered states and the gendered international
Week 8
Gender and armed conflict
Week 9
Gender and human rights
Week 10
Gender and development
Lectures and presentations
Each week there will be an introductory lecture and general discussion on a different subject, as
listed below, in the first hour. The other hour will be given over to student presentations and
discussion arising from the presentations and the recommended reading. Seminars will discuss
the previous week’s topic.
A suggested list of presentation topics will be circulated as a handout in the first week of class.
Students will be asked to sign up for one or two topic they would like to present. Depending on
numbers in the class everyone will be expected to give either one or two presentations. The
standard time for a presentation is 10 minutes or, where there are two presenters in a class, 15
minutes between two. Note that you will be kept to time!
Presentations on a topic will be held on the week after the lecture. So, for example, in week 2
we will have a lecture on gendering politics, and the presentations and discussion in the seminar
will be on the introductory topics from week 1.
How to use this reading list
The list below includes some general indications of appropriate books and journals, and then a
detailed list for each week. You are not expected to read everything on the list, but you should
do some reading each week, and come prepared to discuss what you have read with others in
the class. You should aim to spend around five hours reading for the class each week, which
should be enough to read at least three chapters and articles. On top of this you will need to
read for your presentation/s and essays.
Each week there are ‘recommended‘ readings listed. To prepare for the class you should
generally start here, and read at least 2-3 items. Many of these are available electronically, but
as not everybody will access all the readings we will co-ordinate this in class. You may be asked
to summarise what you have read for others. You are therefore advised to take notes on your
reading before the class which will then also be useful later for your essays.
The ‘additional’ reading will allow you to explore a topic further, particularly if you are preparing a
presentation or essay. When preparing your presentation or essay you are also encouraged to
seek out further reading beyond that included on the list, for example to include case studies of a
2
particular political system with which you are familiar. Some recommendations for further
sources are listed in ‘general reading’, below. You will also want to follow up references in the
other books, articles or reports that you have read.
Most of the reading is available in UCL library, although there are only limited copies of books.
Most of the journals from which articles are recommended are available online. The online
teaching collection also contains chapters from some of the key books, but licences permit us to
digitise only one chapter from each book, and most additional readings have not been digitised.
You should therefore visit the library regularly as well as reading items online. Many items
are also held in Senate House library, SSEES, SOAS and at LSE library.
Assessed essays
The course is assessed on the basis of two essays, each contributing 50% to the overall course
mark. The essay length is 2,000 words (including footnotes but excluding bibliography).
Essays should be based on the questions included at the top of the reading list for each week’s
class (and may be on a topic on which you have given a presentation to the class). Exceptionally
other questions may be used, but students must agree any change of title with the tutor in
advance.
Essay 1 should be based on a question from week 1-5 and is due by Monday 23 February at
2pm.
Essay 2 should be based on a question from week 6-10 and is due by Monday 23 March at
2pm.
Note that the tutor is happy to look at essay outlines in advance, but these must be submitted at
least two weeks before the essay deadline.
You will find useful guidance for writing and presenting essays on the SPP student website
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/Skills/pack/essay.html. These guidelines are designed to help you, and
you should read them carefully and do your best to follow them. You will be penalised, for
example, for inappropriate or inadequate referencing, insufficient evidence of reading, unclear
language or a poorly structured essay. Plagiarism is also taken extremely seriously and can
disqualify you from the degree (for details of what constitutes plagiarism see
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/current-students/study/plagiarism/). If in doubt about any of this, ask the
tutor.
Provisional Core Reading List
There is no single text that adequately covers all of the issues on the course. Much of the
reading will be from journals, and chapters in specialist books. There are however a few general
books with chapters on the recommended list for several weeks of the course, as listed below.
You may want to purchase one or two of these. In practice, however, you may find it best to
read (and if necessary photocopy) key chapters from books in the library.








Blakeley, G. and Bryson, V. (eds.) (2007) The Impact of Feminism on Political Concepts and
Debates. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Judith Squires (2007). The New Politics of Gender Equality. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Joni Lovenduski (2005). Feminising Politics. Cambridge: Polity. + (3 holdings)
Louise Chappell and Lisa Hill (eds.) (2006). The Politics of Women’s Interests. London:
Routledge. –
Phillips, A. (ed.) (1998). Feminism and Politics. (Oxford: Oxford University Press) + (1)
Randall, V. and Waylen, G. (eds.) (1998). Gender, Politics and the State. (New York:
Routledge) + (2)
Stevens, A. (2007). Women Power and Politics. (Basingstoke: Palgrave) + (1)
Stokes, W. (2005). Women in Contemporary Politics. (Cambridge: Polity) + (2)
3
Some specialist journals likely to be used on the course include:
 European Journal of Women’s Studies (-)
 Feminist Review (+: 1979 onwards)
 Feminist Studies (+: 1972 onwards)
 Feminist Theory (+: 2000 onwards)
 Gender and Development (+ 1995 onwards)
 Gender and Society (+: 1987 onwards)
 International Feminist Journal of Politics (+: 1999 onwards)
 Journal of Gender Studies (+: 1999 onwards)
 Men and Masculinities (+: 1999 onwards)
 Politics and Gender (-)
There are also several Special Issues of Parliamentary Affairs on gender issues that may be of
interest. Some of the most recent are:
 Parliamentary Affairs 49 (1). 1996.
 Parliamentary Affairs 55 (1). 2002.
 Parliamentary Affairs 61 (3). 2008.
Week 1: History of Feminism, Feminist Political Thought and Masculinism
Recommended Reading
 Beasley, C. (1999) What is Feminism: An Introduction to Feminist Theory. London: Sage
+(1)
 Bryson, V. (1999) Feminist Debates: Issues of Theory and Political Practice. London:
Macmillan. + (1)
 Bryson, V. (2003) Feminist Political Thought: An Introduction. London: Macmillan. + (1)
 Connell, R. W. (2005) ‘Change among the Gatekeepers: Men, Masculinities, and Gender
Equality in the Global Arena.’ Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30:3
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/427525
 Durst-Lahti, G. (2008) Politics, Gender and Concepts: Theory and Methodology. Chapter
8 ‘Gender ideology: masculinism and feminalism’, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. (KW)
 Durst-Lahti, G. (2008) Politics, Gender and Concepts: Theory and Methodology. Chapter
10 ‘Women’s movements, feminism, and feminist movements’, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. (KW)
 Gross, E. (1992) ‘What is Feminist Theory?’ in Crowley, H. and Himmelweit, S., Knowing
Women: Feminism and Knowledge. Cambridge: Polity Press. +(2)
 Squires, J. (1999). Gender in Political Theory. Cambridge: Polity. + (2)
 Weldon, S. L. Politics, Gender and Concepts: Theory and Methodology. Chapter 9
‘Intersectionality’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Presentation topics (for week 2 seminar):
 What does ‘the personal is political’ mean and what relevance does it have in the 21st
century? (Essay title)
 Select a debate from ‘Does Feminism Discriminate against Men?’ present a summary of
the argument and your opinion on the subject.
 Evaluate the contributions of the feminist research approach to political science. (Essay
title)
Additional Reading
 Bourque, S. and Grossholtz, J. (1974) ‘Politics an Unnatural Practice: Political Science
Looks at Women’s Participation’, Politics and Society 4 (2): 225-266. Or in Phillips, A.
(ed.) (1998) Feminism and Politics. Oxford: OUP. +, +(2)
 Brod, H. (1987) The making of masculinities: the new men's studies. Boston: Allen &
Unwin. -
4














Butler, J. and Scott, J. (eds.) Feminists Theorize the Political. New York: Routledge. +(2)
Carver, T. (1998) ‘A Political Theory of Gender: perspectives on the “universal subject” ‘
in Randall, V. and Waylen, G. (eds.) Gender, Politics and the State. New York:
Routledge. +(2)
Charli Carpenter, R. (2002) ‘Gender Theory in World Politics: Contributions of a NonFeminist Standpoint’, International Studies Review 4 (3): 153-66. +
Evans, J. et al (1986) Feminism and Political Theory. London: Sage +(1)
Evans, J. (1995) Feminist Theory Today. London: Sage. +(1)
Farrell, W. with Svobada, S. (2008) Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men? A
Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frazer, E. (1998) ‘Feminism and Political Theory’ in Jackson, S. and Jones, J. (eds.),
Contemporary Feminist Theories. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. +(1)
Krook, M.L. and Squires, J ‘Gender Quotas in British Politics: Multiple Approaches and
Methods in Feminist Research’. (2006) British Politics Issue 1. +
Martin, P.M. (2004) ‘Contextualising Feminist Political Theory’ in Staeheli, L.A. et al
(eds.) Mapping Women, Making Politics. London: Routledge +(1)
Nagy Hesse-Biber, S. (2007) Handbook of feminist research: theory and praxis.
Thousand Oaks, Calif.:Sage Publications. Nagy Hesse-Biber, S. (2007) Feminist Research Practice: A Primer Thousand Oaks,
Calif.:Sage Publications. Randall, Vicky (2002) Theories and Methods in Political Science (2nd ed.) Marsh, D. and
Stoker, G. (eds.) ‘Feminism’, Basingstoke, Palgrave-MacMillan. (KW)
Shanley, M.L. and Pateman, C. (eds.) (1991) Feminist Interpretations and Political
Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press. +(1)
Zerilli, L. (1991) ‘Machiavelli’s Sisters: Women and the “Conversation” of Political
Theory’, Political Theory 19 (2): 252-276. +
Week 2: Gendering politics
Recommended Reading
 Annesley, C., Gains, F. and Rummery, K. (eds.) (2007) Women and New Labour.
London: Policy Press. Chapter 2 ‘Engendering Politics? Theoretical Underpinnings:
Women, Gender, Feminising and Politics.’ +(1)
 Fukuyama, F. (1998) ‘Women and the Evolution of World Politics’, Foreign Affairs 77 (5):
24-39. +
 Lovenduski, J. (2005) ‘Introduction’ in Lovenduski, J. Feminizing Politics. Cambridge:
Polity Press. +(3)
 Paxton, P. and Hughes, M. (2007) ‘Introduction to Women in Politics’ in Paxton, P. and
Hughes, M. Women, Politics and Power. London: Pine Forge Press. +(1)
 Stokes, W. (2005). ‘Feminist Theory and Women’s Political Activism’ in Stokes, W.
Women in Contemporary Politics. Cambridge: Polity + (2)
 Sapiro, V. (1998) ‘Feminist Studies and Political Science- and Vice-Versa’ in Phillips, A.
(ed.) Feminism and Politics, pp. 55-76. +
 Waylen, G. (1998) ‘Gender, Feminism and the State: an Overview’ in Randall, V. and
Waylen, G. (eds.) Gender, Politics and the State. New York: Routledge. +(2)
Presentation topics (for week 3 seminar):
 Read ‘Mapping Gender and Politics Concepts: Ten Guidelines’ (Goertz, G. and Mazur, A.
(2008) Politics, Gender, and Concepts: Theory and Methodology. Select two of their
guidelines, present them and why you selected them.
Additional reading
 Carver, T. (1996) Gender is Not a Synonym for Women. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner
Press.  Connell, R.W. and Messerschmidt, J.W. (2005) ‘Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the
Concept’, Gender and Society 19: 829-859. +
5



Firestone, S. (1970). The Dialectic of Sex. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Hearn, J. (2004) ‘From Hegemonic Masculinity to the Hegemony of Men’, Feminist
Theory 5 (1): 49-72. +
Moi, T. (1999) ‘What is A Woman: Sex, Gender and the Body in Feminist Theory’, in
What is a Woman? And Other Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press + (3 holdings)
Week 3: Gender and political behaviour
Recommended Reading
 Beckwith, K. (2000) ‘Beyond Compare? Women’s Movements in Comparative
Perspective’, European Journal of Political Research 37 (4) 431-468. +
 Campbell, R. (2006) Gender and the Vote in Britain: Beyond the Gender Gap? Chapter 1
‘Why Gender and Voting Behaviour? Feminist Theory and Other Accounts’ and Chapter
3 ‘Gender Ideology and Issue Preference’, Colchester: ECPR Press (KW)
 Campbell, R and Childs S. (2008) Women and British Party Politics: Descriptive,
Substantive and Symbolic Representation. Chapter 1 ‘Women’s Political Participation
and Voting’, London: Routledge. +
 Norris, P. and Inglehart, R. (2000) ‘The Developmental Theory of the Gender Gap:
Women and Men’s Voting Behaviour in Global Perspective’. International Political
Science Review 21 (4): 441-462. +
 Stevens, A. (2007) Women Power and Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chapters: 2 ‘Women as Citizens’, 3 ‘Women as Voters’ and 7 ‘Feminism Participation
and Activism’. +(1)
Presentation topics (for week 4 seminar):
 Summarise and evaluate the findings of Winters, K. and Campbell, R. (2007) ‘Hearts or
Minds? Leader Evaluations by Men and Women in the General Election’ in Political
Communications: The General Election Campaign of 2005. Wring et al (eds). +
 Briefly summarise the ‘gender gap’ in the 2008 American presidential election. Evaluate
whether the term ‘gender gap’ adequately describes men and women’s voting
preferences. (Essay title)
Additional reading: General/Citizenship
 Dietz, M. (1998) ‘Context is All: Feminism and Theories of Citizenship’ in Phillips, A. (ed.)
Feminism and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press + (1)
 Mouffe, C. (1992) ‘Feminism, Citizenship and Radical Democratic Politics’ in Butler, J.
and Scott, J. (eds.) Feminist Theorize the Political. London: Routledge. +(2)
 Nash, K. (1998) ‘Beyond Liberalism? Feminist Theories of Democracy’ in Randall, V. and
Waylen, G. (eds.) Gender, Politics and the State. London: Routledge. +(2)
 Pateman, C. (1989) ‘Feminism and Democracy’ in The Disorder of Women. Cambridge:
Polity Press. + (1)
 Prokhovnik, R. (1998) ‘Public and Private Citizenship : from Gender Invisibility to
Feminist Inclusiveness’, Feminist Review 60 (1): 84-104. +
 Young, I.M. (1998) ‘Polity and Group Difference: A Critique of the Ideal of Universal
Citizenship’ in Phillips, A. (ed.) Feminism and Politics. Oxford: OUP. +(1)
Additional reading: Women’s Movements
 Fairhurst, J., Ramudsintela, M. and Bob, U. (2004) ‘Social Movements, Gender and
Resistance’ in Staeheli, L.A. et al (eds.) Mapping Women, Making Politics. London:
Routledge. +(1)
 Molyneux, M. (1998) ‘Analysing Women’s Movements’, Development and Change 29 (2):
219-245. +
 Paxton, P., Hughes, M., and Green, J., (2006) ‘The International Women’s Movement
and Women’s Political Representation, 1893-2003.’ American Sociological Review
(71):898-920. +
6



Rowbotham, S. (1992) Women in Movement: Feminism and Social Action. Especially
part IV. London: Routledge +(2)
Scholzman, K.L., Burns, N. and Verba, S. (1994) ‘Gender and The Pathways to
Participation: The Role of Resources’, The Journal of Politics 56(4): 963-990. Sparks, H. (1997) ‘Dissident Citizenship: Democratic Theory, Political Courage, and
Activist Women’, Hypatia 12 (4): 74-110. +
Additional reading: Voting
 Campbell, R. and Lovenduski, J. (2005). ‘Winning Women’s Votes?’ Parliamentary
Affairs, 58 (4): 837-853. +
 Campbell, R. (2004). ‘Gender, Ideology and Issue Preference’, British Journal of Politics
and International Relations, 6 (1): 20-44. +
 Conover, P.J., (1988) ‘Feminists and the Gender Gap’, Journal of Politics 50: 985-1010.
+
 Dolan, K. (1998) ‘Voting for Women in the “Year of the Woman”‘, American Journal of
Political Science 42 (1): 272-93. +
 Fraser, E. and MacDonald, K. (2003) ‘Sex Differences in Political Knowledge in Britain’,
Political Studies 51 (1): 67-83 +
 Inglehart, R., Norris, P. and Welzel, C. (2002), ‘Gender Equality and Democracy’,
Comparative Sociology 1 (3-4): 321-346. Available at
http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~pnorris/Acrobat/Gender%20equality%20&%20democracy.p
df +
 Hill, L. (2006) ‘Women’s Interests and Political Orientations: the gender voting gap in
three industrialised settings’ in Hill, L. and Chappell, L. (eds.) The Politics of Women’s
Interests. London: Routledge.  Sapiro, V. and Conover, P.J. (1997) ‘The Variable Gender Basis of Electoral Politics:
Gender and Politics in the 1992 US Election’, British Journal of Political Science 27: 497523. +
 Shapiro, R.Y. and Mahajan, H. (1986) ‘Gender Differences in Policy Preferences: A
Summary of Trends from the 1960s to the 1980s’, Public Opinion Quarterly 50: 42-61. +
 Stokes, W. (2005) ‘Voting and Elections: Background Information’ and ‘Getting and
Using The Vote’ in Stokes, W. Women in Contemporary Politics. Cambridge: Polity
Press. +(2)
 Verba, S., Burns, N., and Schlozman, K. L. (1997) ‘Knowing and Caring About Politics:
Gender and Political Engagement’, Journal of Politics 59: 1051-72. +
 Welch, S. (1997) ‘Women as Political Animals? A Test of Some Explanations for MaleFemale Political Participation Differences’, American Journal of Political Science 4: 71130. +
 Wirls, D. (1986) ‘Reinterpreting the Gender Gap’, Public Opinion Quarterly 50: 181-99. +
Week 4: Women’s representation in elected office: does it matter
Note that readings for weeks 4 and 5 marked ‘‘ should be available electronically, and those
marked ‘‘ should be in the teaching collection boxes in SPP.
Recommended reading
 Childs S. (2008) Women and British Party Politics: Descriptive, Substantive and
Symbolic Representation. Chapter 4 ‘Representation: Why Women’s Presence Matters’,
London: Routledge. +
 Mansbridge, J. (1999).  ‘Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent
Women? A Contingent ‘Yes’’, The Journal of Politics, 61(3): 628-657.
 Dovi, S. (2002).  ‘Preferable Descriptive Representatives: Will Just Any Woman, Black or
Latino Do?’, American Political Science Review, 96(4): 729-743.
 Phillips, A, (1995). The Politics of Presence: The Political Representation of Gender,
Ethnicity and Race, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Particularly chapter 2 (‘Political Equality
and Fair Representation’) .
7

Pitkin, H. (1967). The Concept of Representation, Berkeley: University of California
Press. Chapter 4 (Descriptive Representation). Also Chapter 5 (Symbolic
Representation)
and
Chapter
6
(‘Representing
as
“Acting
For”‘).
Presentation topics (for week 5 seminar):
 Summarise and evaluate Mansbridge’s ‘Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women
Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes’’. Do you agree or not, and why?
 Is women’s descriptive representation a necessary precursor to their substantive
representation? (Essay title)
 Summarise and evaluate Kenworthy, L. and Malami, M.’s ‘Gender Inequality in Political
Representation: A Worldwide Comparative Analysis’.
 Critical mass is a key concept for those promoting gender quotas. Evaluate the debates
around critical mass and critical actors. Which do you find more convincing and why?
(Essay title)
Additional reading
 2008 Special Issue of Representation: The Substantive Representation of Women 44 (2)
+
 Critical Perspective on Gender and Politics: Do Women Represent Women? Rethinking
the “Critical Mass” Debate. Gender and Politics 2:4 pp. 492 – 530. (KW)
 Bochel, C. and Briggs, J. (2000) ‘Do Women Make a Difference’, Politics 20 (2): 63-68. +
 Childs, S. (2004).  ‘A Feminised Style of Politics? Women MPs in the House of
Commons’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 6(1): 3-19
 Dahlerup, D. (1988). ‘From a Small to a Large Minority: Women in Scandinavian Politics’,
Scandinavian Political Studies, 11(4): 275-298.
 Fox, R. and Lawless, J.L. (2004) ‘Entering the Arena? Gender and the Decision to run for
Office’, American Journal of Political Science 48(2): 264-280. +
 Kenworthy, L. and Malami, M. (1999).  ‘Gender Inequality in Political Representation: A
Worldwide Comparative Analysis’, Social Forces, 78(1): 235-69.
 Laurel Weldon, S. (2002).  ‘Beyond Bodies: Institutional Sources of Representation for
Women in Democratic Policymaking’, The Journal of Politics, 64(4): 1153-74.
 Lovenduski, J. (2005) ‘Feminism and Political Representation: Ideas and Struggles’ ,
‘Obstacles to Feminizing Politics’ and ‘Making a Difference? Conclusions’ in Lovenduski,
J. Feminizing Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press. + (3)
 Matland, R. E. (1995).  ‘How the election system structure has helped women close the
representation gap’, in L. Karvonen and P. Selle , Women in Nordic Politics: Closing the
Gap.Aldershot: Ashgate.
 Matland, R. E. (1998).  ‘Women’s Representation in National Legislatures: Developed
and Developing Countries’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 23(1): 109-125.
 Matland, R. E. and Montgomery, K. A. (eds.) (2003).  Women’s access to political
power in post-communist Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Useful general
chapters and case studies including Lithuania, Hungary, Ukraine, Poland and others.
 Norris, P. (2004). Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behaviour,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (chapter 8 ‘Women’).
 Phillips, A. (1993) Democracy and Difference (Cambridge: Polity Press) + (2)
 Phillips, A. (ed.) (1998). Feminism and Politics. Oxford; Oxford University Press. Chapter
7 by Virginia Sapiro (‘When are Interests Interesting? The Problem of Political
Representation of Women’) and chapter 10 by Anne Phillips (‘Democracy and
Representation: Or, Why Should it Matter Who our Representatives Are?’).
 Sawer, M. Tremblay, M. and Trimble, L. (eds.) (2006). Representing Women in
Parliament: A Comparative Study, London: Routledge. +(1)
 Schwindt-Bayer, L. A. (2006).  ‘Still Supermadres? Gender and the Policy Priorities of
Latin American Legislators’, American Journal of Political Science, 50(3): 570-85.
 Spary, C. (2007) ‘Female Political Leadership in India’, Commonwealth and Comparative
Politics 45(3): 253-277. +
 Stevens, A. (2007) Women Power and Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chapters: 4 ‘The Representation of Women’, 6 ‘Women and Positions of Power’ and 8
‘Do Women Make A Difference? Political Theory and Political Practice’. +1
8
 Stockemer, D. (2008) ‘Women’s Representation: A Comparison between Europe and the
Americas’, Politics 28 (2): 65-73. +
 Swers, M. L. (1998).  ‘Are Women More Likely to Vote for Women’s Issue Bills than
Their Male Counterparts?’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 23(3): 435-48.
 Thomas, S. and Welch, S. (2006). ‘The Impact of Gender on Activities and Priorities of
State Legislators’, The Western Political Quarterly, 44(2): 445-56.
 Tremblay, M. (2007).  ‘Electoral Systems and Substantive Representation of Women: A
Comparison of Australia, Canada and New Zealand’, Commonwealth & Comparative
Politics, 45(3): 278 – 302.
 Tremblay, M. L. (2007).  ‘Democracy, Representation, and Women: A Comparative
Analysis’, Democratization, 14(4): 533 – 553.
 Wängnerud, L. (2000).  ‘Testing the Politics of Presence: Women’s Representation in
the Swedish Riksdag’, Scandinavian Political Studies 23 (1), 67-91.
Websites
 The Inter-Parliamentary Union www.ipu.org comprises all legislatures in democracies. The
website includes a links page for individual parliamentary sites, as well as the ‘Parline’
database which includes basic details about all existent parliamentary chambers, a list of
publications and other useful links.
Week 5: Quotas, positive discrimination and positive action
Recommended reading
 Celis, K. (2008) Chapter 4 ‘Gendering Representation’ in Politics, Gender and Concepts:
Theory and Methodology G. Goertz and A. Mazur (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. (KW)
 Caul Kittilson, M. (2006). ‘In Support of Gender Quotas’, Politics and Gender, 1 (4): 638645
 Dahlerup, D. (ed.) (2006). Women, Quotas and Politics, London: Routledge, 2006.
Introduction by Dahlerup and chapter 2 (‘Arguing for and Against Quotas: Theoretical
Issues’) by Bacchi, particularly country case studies.
 Lovenduski, J. (2005). ‘Equality Strategies and the Quota Movement’ and ‘Examples:
Quotas and Parties’, in Lovenduski, J. Feminizing Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press. +(3)
Presentation topics (for week 6 seminar):
 Summarise and evaluate Macaulay’s ‘Cross-party alliances around gender agendas:
critical mass, critical actors, critical structures, or critical juncture.’ Apply her evaluations
to a non-Latin American case.
 Are quotas an effective way to increase women’s representation? (Essay title)
 Summarise and evaluate Lovenduski’s ‘Equality Strategies and the Quota Movement’.
Additional reading
 Bacchi, C. (1996) The Politics of Affirmative Action. London: Sage  Caul, M. (1999).  ‘Political Parties and the Adoption of Candidate Gender Quotas: A
Cross-National Analysis’, The Journal of Politics 63(4) 1214-29.
 Caul, M. (1999).  ‘Women’s Representation in Parliament: The Role of Political
Parties’, Party Politics 5(1): 79-98.
 Dahlerup, D. and Freidenvall, L. (2005) ‘Quotas as a “Fast Track” to equal political
Representation for Women: why Scandinavia is no longer the Model’, International
Feminist Journal of Politics 7 (1): 26-48. +
 Ishiyama, J.T. (2003) ‘Women’s Parties in Post-Communist Politics’, East European
Politics and Societies 17(2): 266-304. +
 Krook, M. L. (2007).  ‘Candidate gender quotas: A framework for analysis’, European
Journal of Political Research, 46(3): 367–394.
 Macaulay F. (2005) Cross-party alliances around gender agendas: critical mass, critical
actors, critical structures, or critical juncture. United Nations Expert Group Meeting on
9








Equal participation of women and men in decision-making processes, with particular
emphasis on political participation and leadership.
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/eql-men/docs/EP.12_Macaulay.pdf
MacKinnon, C. (1998) ‘Difference and Dominance: On Sex Discrimination’ in Phillips, A.
(ed.) Feminism and Politics. Oxford: OUP. +(1)
Murray, R. (2007).  ‘How Parties Evaluate Compulsory Quotas: A Study of the
Implementation of the ‘Parity’ Law in France’, Parliamentary Affairs, 60(4): 568-584.
Rai, S. M. (2002).  ‘Political representation, democratic institutions and women’s
empowerment: the quota debate in India’, in J. L. Parpart, S. M. Rai and K. Staudt,
(eds.), Rethinking Empowerment: Gender and Development in a Global/Local World,
London: Routledge.
Russell, M., Mackay, F. and McAllister, L. (2002).  ‘Women’s Representation in the
Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales: Party Dynamics for Achieving
Critical Mass’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 8(2) pp. 49-76.
Squires, J. (1996). ‘Quotas for Women: Fair Representation?’, Parliamentary Affairs, 49
(1): 71-88. +
Stevens, A. (2007) Women Power and Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chapter 5 ‘Strategies for Increasing Representation by Women’. +1
Stokes, W. (2005) ‘Quotas for Women in Parties And Parliaments’ and ‘Women’s Parties’
in Stokes, W. Women in Contemporary Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press. +(2)
Tripp, A. M., and Kang, A. (2008) ‘The Global Impact of Quotas: The Fast Track to
Female Representation’, Comparative Political Studies 41(3): 338-361. +
Week 6: Gender policy machinery and ‘mainstreaming’
Recommended reading
 Butler, J. (2007) ‘Engendering Governance: Mainstreaming’ in The New Politics of
Gender Equality. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. (KW)
 Chappell, L. (2002) ‘The Femocrat Strategy: Expanding the Repertoire of Feminism
Activists’ in Parliamentary Affairs 55 (1): 85-98. +
 International Feminist Journal of Politics, Vol 7 (4), 2005, Comparative Gender
Mainstreaming, Special Issue. +
 Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, Vol. 12 (3), 2005:
Gender Mainstreaming Special Issue, especially article by Squires +
 Walby, S. (2005) ‘Gender Mainstreaming: Productive Tensions in Theory and Practice’,
Social Politics 12 (3) Fall: 321-343. +
Presentation topics (for week 7 seminar):
 Gender mainstreaming is a way to make visible the gendered nature of assumptions,
processes and outcomes in policies. Compare and evaluate the different ways in which
the concept of ‘gender equality’ can be used in the mainstreaming process. (Essay title)
 How does gender mainstreaming provide additional insights when used in conjunction
with other forms of inequality such as class or ethnicity?
Additional reading
 Annesley, C., Gains, F. and Rummery, K. (eds.) (2007) Women and New Labour.
London: Policy Press. Chapter 5 ‘Engendering the Machinery of Government’. +1
 Beveridge, F., Nott, S. and Stephen, K. (2000) ‘Mainstreaming and Engendering of
Policy-Making: a Means to an End?’, Journal of European Public Policy 7 (3): 385-405. +
 Booth, C. and Bennett, C. (2002) ‘Gender Mainstreaming in the European Union’, The
European Journal Of Women’s Studies 9(4): 430-446.  Chaney, P. (2004) ‘The Post-Devolution Equality Agenda: The Case of Welsh
Assembly’s Statutory Duty to Promote Equality of Opportunity’, Policy and Politics 32 (1):
37-52. +
 Gardiner, F. (ed.) (1997) Sex Equality Policy in Western Europe. London: Routledge. –
10









Hafner-Burton, E. and Pollack, M. (2000) ‘Mainstreaming Gender in the European Union’,
Journal of European Public Policy 7(3): 432-456. +
Mazey, S. (2001) Gender Mainstreaming in the EU: Principle and Practice. London:
Kogan Page. –
Rees, T. (1998) Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union: Education, Training and
Labour Market Policies (London: Routledge) Rees, T. (2002) ‘ The Politics of “Mainstreaming” Gender Equality’ in Breitenbach, E.
(ed.) The Changing Politics of Gender Equality (Basingstoke: Palgrave) Squires, J. and Wickham-Jones, M. (2002) ‘Mainstreaming in Westminster and Whitehall:
From Labour’s Ministry of Women to the Women and Equality Unit’ in Parliamentary
Affairs 55 (1): 57-70. +
Squires, J. (2007) ‘Equality Strategies: Quotas, Policy Agencies and Mainstreaming’,
‘Making a Difference? Evaluating Impact’, ‘Feminist Advocacy? Policy Agencies’ and
‘Engendering Governance? Mainstreaming’ in Squires, J. The New Politics of Gender
Equality. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Stetson, D. and Mazur, A. (1995) Comparative State Feminism (Oxford: OUP) –
Stratigaki, M. (2005) ‘Gender Mainstreaming versus Positive Action: an ongoing Conflict
in EU Gender Equality Policy’, The European Journal of Women’s Studies 12 (2): 165186. –
Teghtsoonian, K. (2006) ‘Disparate fates in challenging times: women’s policy agencies
and neoliberalism in Aotearoa/New Zealand and British Columbia’ in Hill, L. and
Chappell, L. (eds.) The Politics of Women’s Interests. London: Routledge. -
Week 7: Gendered states and the gendered international
Recommended reading
 Enloe, C. (2000). Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International
Politics. University of California Press. + (1st ed:1; 2nd ed: 1)
 Steans, J. (2006). Gender and International Relations: Issues, Debates and Future
Directions. Oxford: Polity Press. + (1)
 Sylvester, C. (1996) ‘The Contributions of Feminism to International Relations’, in: Steve
Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and
Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 254-78. + (4)
 Youngs, G. (2004). Feminist International Relations: a contradiction in terms? Or: why
women and gender are essential to understanding the world ‘we’ live in.’ International
Affairs 80 (1): 75-87. (KW)
Presentation topics (for week 8 seminar):
 Read and summarise the article ‘Feminist International Relations: a contradiction in
terms? Or: why women and gender are essential to understanding the world ‘we’ live in’.
 Evaluate the view of Steve Smith: ‘The most productive focus [in IR] is on gender, not
women or feminism.’ (Essay title)
Additional reading
 Carver, T., Cochran, M. and Squires, J. (1998) ‘Gendering Jones: Feminisms, IRs and
Masculinities’, Review of International Studies 24 (3): 283-297. +
 Charles, N. (2000) Feminism, The State and Social Policy. Chapter 1. Basingstoke:
Macmillan.  Charlesworth, H. and Chinkin, C.(2000) The Boundaries of International Law: A Feminist
Analysis. Manchester: Manchester University Press. + (6)
 Jabri, V. and O’Gorman, E. (1999) Women, Culture and International Relations. London:
Lynne Riener  Jones, A. (1996) ‘Does Gender Make the World Go Round? Feminist Critiques of
International Relations’, Review of International Studies 22 (4): 405-429.  Jones, A. (1998) ‘Engendering Debate: a Response to Carver, Cochran and Squires’ ,
Review of International Studies 24 (3): 299-303. +
11



















Kantola, J. (2006) Feminists Theorize the State. New York: Palgrave, especially ‘Gender
and the State: Theories and Debates’. +
Keohane, R. (1989) ‘International Relations Theory: Contributions of a Feminist
Standpoint’, Millennium 18(2): 245-254. +
Paxton, P. and Hughes, M. (2007) Women, Politics and Power: A Global Perspective.
London: Pine Forge Press. +(1)
Peterson, V.S. (1992). Gendered States: Feminist (Re) Visions of International Relations
Theory. Lynne Reiner. + (2)
Peterson, V.S. and Runyan, A.S. (1999) ‘The Politics of Resistance: Women as
Nonstate, Antistate, and Transstate Actors’, ‘The Gender of World Politics, ‘Gender as a
Lens on World Issues’ in Peterson, V. and Runyan, A. Global Gender Issues. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press. + (1st ed.:1; 2nd ed.: 1)
Pettman, J.J. (2004) ‘Global Politics and Transnational Feminisms’ in Ricciutelli, L. et al
(eds.) Feminist Politics, Activism and Vision. London: Zed Books –
Raghuran, P. (2004) ‘Crossing Borders: Gender and Migration’ in Staeheli, L.A. et al
(eds.) Mapping Women, Making Politics. London: Routledge +(1)
Smith, M.L. (2006) ‘Internationa Citizenship and Women’s Interests’ in Hill, L. and
Chappell, L. (eds.) The Politics of Women’s Interests. London: Routledge. Squires, J. and Weldes, J. (2007) ‘Beyond Being Marginal: Gender and International
Relations in Britain’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 9 (2): 185-203.
+
Stokes, W. (2005) ‘Women and the United Nations’ in Stokes, W. Women in
Contemporary Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press. +(2)
Sylvester, C. (2002) Feminist International Relations: An Unfinished Journey. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. +
Sylvester, C. (2004) ‘Woe or Whoa! International Relations Where It’s Not Supposed to
BE’, in: Brown Journal of World Affairs, 10(2). +
Tickner, J.A. (2001) Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in the Post-Cold
War Era. New York: Columbia University Press. + (2)
Tickner, J.A. (1997) ‘You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements between
Feminists and IR Theorists’ in: International Studies Quarterly, 41(4), pp. 611-32. +
Weber, C. (1994) ‘Good Girls, Little Girls and Bad Girls: Male Paranoia in Robert
Keohane’s Critique of Feminist International Relations’, Millennium 23 (2): 337-349. +
Whitworth, S. (1994) Feminism and International Relations. London: Macmillan Youngs, G. (2006) ‘Feminist International Relations in the Age of the War on Terror:
Ideologies, Religions and Conflict’, in: International Feminist Journal of Politics, 8(1). +
Zalewski, M. (2007) ‘Do We Understand Each Other Yet? Troubling Feminist Encounters
With(in) International Relations’, in: British Journal of Politics and International Relations,
9(2). +
Zalewski, M. and Parpart, J. (eds.) (1998) The ‘Man’ Question in International Relations.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press. -
Week 8: Gender and armed conflict
Recommended reading
 Cockburn, C. (2001) ‘The Gendered Dynamics of Armed Conflict and Political Violence’
in Moser, C. and Clark, F. (eds.) (2001) Victims, Perpetrators, or Actors? Gender, Armed
Conflict and Cultural Violence. London: Zed Books. +2
 Conover, P.J. and Sapiro, V., (1993) ‘Gender, Feminist Consciousness and War’,
American Journal of Political Science 37: 1079-99. +
 Hansen, L. (2001) ‘Gender, Nation, Rape: Bosnia and the Construction of Security’,
International Feminist Journal of Politics, 3(1): 55-75. +
 Jones, A. (2000) ‘Gendercide and Genocide’, Journal of Genocide Research 2 (2): 185211.+
12

Moser, C. (2001) ‘The Gendered Continuum of Violence and Conflict: An Operational
Framework’ in Moser, C. and Clark, F. (eds.) (2001) Victims, Perpetrators, or Actors?
Gender, Armed Conflict and Cultural Violence. London: Zed Books. +2
Presentation topics (for week 9 seminar):
 Review three sex-stereotypes of women which underpin the analysis of armed conflict.
How has the application of a gendered perspective altered the study of armed conflict?
(Essay title)
 Research the Gender Affairs Unit established by the UN Transitional Administration in
East Timor (UNTAET) and present your findings.
Additional reading
 Carpenter, R.C. (2003). “Women and Children First”: Gender, Norms and Humanitarian
Evacuation in the Balkans, 1991-1995’, International Organization 57 (4): 661-694. +
 Cunningham, K.J. (2003) ‘Cross-Regional Trends in Female Terrorism’, Studies in
Conflict and Terrorism 26 (3): 171-195. +
 Dudink, S., Hagerman, K. and Tosh, J. (eds.) (2004) Masculinities in Politics and War:
Gendering Modern History. Manchester: Manchester University Press. +
 Enloe, C. (2000) Manuevers: The International Politics of Militarising Women’s Lives.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. –
 Enloe, C. (2004) ‘”All Men are in the Militias, All the Women are Victims”: The Politics of
Masculinity and Femininity in Nationalist Wars’ in Enloe, C., The Curious Feminist.
Berkeley: University of California Press. +(2)
 Enloe, C. 1993: ‘Beyond Steve Canyon and Rambo: histories of Militarised Masculinity’,
in: The Morning After: Sexual Politics at the End of Cold War. Berkeley: University of
California Press. + (1)
 Goldstein, J. (2001) War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice
Versa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.+
 Hamilton, C. (2007) ‘The Gender Politics of Political Violence: Women Armed Activists in
ETA’, in: Feminist Review, 86(1): 132-148. +
 Hatty, S.E. (2000) Masculinities, Violence and Culture. London: Sage Publications.+
Jacobs, S., Jacobson, R. and Marchbank, J. (eds.) (2001) States of Conflict: International
Perspectives on Gender, Violence and Resistance. New York: Zed Books. –
 Kaufman-Osborn, T. (2005) ‘Gender Trouble at Abu Ghraib?’, Politics and Gender 1(4):
597-619.  Kimmel, M. (2000) ‘The Gender of Violence’ in The Gendered Society. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.+
 Masters, M. (2005) ‘Bodies of Technology: Cyborg Soldiers and Militarised Masculinities’,
in: International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(1). +
 Sjoberg, L. (2007) ‘Agency, Militarised Femininity and Enemy Others: Observations from
the War in Iraq’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 9(1): 82-101 +
 Skjelsbaek, I. (2001) ‘Is Femininity Inherently Peaceful? The Construction of Femininity
in War’ in Skjelsbaek, I. and Smith, D. (eds.) Gender, Peace and Conflict. Thousand
Oaks: Sage. Pp 47-67.  Skjelsbaek, I. (2001) ‘Sexual Violence and War: Mapping out a Complex Relationship’,
in: European Journal of International Relations, 7(2): 211-237. +
 Steans (2006) Ch. 4 ‘Feminist Perspectives on War and Peace’ and Ch. 5 ‘Re-Visioning
Security’ in Steans, J. (2006) Gender and International Relations.Cambridge: Polity
Press.+
 Van Creveld, M. (2000) ‘The Great Illusion: Women in the Military’, Millennium 29 (2):
429-42.+
 Vickers, J. (1993) Women and War. London: Zed Books Week 9: Gender and Human Rights
Recommended reading
13





Engle Merry, S. (2007) ‘Human Rights Law as a Path to International Justice: the Case of
the Women’s Convention’ in Dembour, M.B. and Kelly, T. (2007) Paths to International
Justice: Social and Legal Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. +(1)
Grewal, I. (1999) ‘Women’s Rights as Human Rights: Feminist Practices, Global
Feminism, and Human Rights Regimes in Transnationality’, Citizenship Studies 3 (3):
337-54. +
Lloyd, M. (2007) ‘(Women’s) human rights: paradoxes and possibilities.’ Review of
International Studies 33, 91–103 +
Mullally, S. (2006) Gender, Culture and Human Rights: Reclaiming Univeralism. Oxford:
Hart. +(3)
Peterson, V.S. and Parisi, L. (1998) ‘Are Women Human? It’s Not an Academic
Question’ in T. Evans (ed.) Human Rights Fifty Years On: A Reappraisal. Manchester:
Manchester University Press. +
Presentation topics (for week 9 seminar):
 Lloyd’s article focuses on paradoxes and potentials of human rights discourse for women
and feminism. Review her article and evaluate her claims.
 Feminism has challenged and reconceptualised the limited notions of ‘human rights’.
Discuss this process with reference to two examples. (Essay title)
Additional reading
 Afkhami, M. (1995) Faith and Freedom: Women’s Human Rights in the Muslim World.
I.B. Tauris. Banda, F. (2005) Women, Law and Human Rights: An African Perspective. Oxford: Hart.
+ (1).
 Bustelo, M. (2000) ‘CEDAW at the Crossroads’ in Alston, P. and Crawford, J. (eds.) The
Future of UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
+ (2).
 Charlesworth, H. and Chinkin, C. (2000). The Boundaries of International Law: A
Feminist Analysis. Manchester: Manchester University Press. +
 Cook, R.J. (ed.) (1994) Human Rights of Women: National and International
Perspectives. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. +
 Coomaraswamy, R. (1999) ‘Reinventing International Law: Women’s Rights as Human
Rights’ in P. Van Ness (ed.) Debating Human Rights: Critical Essays from the United
States and Asia. New York: Routledge.+
 Engle Merry, S. (2005) Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International
Law into Local Justice. London: University of Chicago Press. +(1)
 Hardwig, J. (1990) ‘Should Women Think in Terms of Rights?’ in C. Sunstein (ed.)
Feminist Political Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. James, S. (1994) ‘Challenging Patriachal Privilege Through the Development of
International Human Rights’, Women’s Studies International Forum 17 (6): 563-78.+
 Kelly, L. (2005) ‘ Inside Outsiders: Mainstreaming Violence against Women into Human
Rights discourse and practice’ , International Feminist Journal of Politics 7(4): 471-495. +
 Maiguashca, B. (2005) ‘Theorizing Knowledge from Women’s Political Practices: The
Case of the Women’s Reproductive Rights Movement’, International Feminist Journal of
Politics 7 (2): 207-32. +
 Molyneux, M. and Razavi, S. (eds.) (2002) Gender Justice, Development and Rights.
Oxford: OUP. +(1)
 Nash, K. (2002) ‘Human Rights of Women: An Argument for Deconstructive Equality’,
Economy and Society 31 (3): 414-33. +
 Nussbaum, M. (1999) ‘Religion and Women’s Human Rights’ in Sex and Social Justice.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. +
 Okin, S.M. (1998) ‘Feminism, Women’s Human Rights and Cultural Differences.’ Hypatia
13, (2): 32-52. +
 Peters, J. and Wolper, A. (1995). Women’s Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist
Perspectives. New York: Routledge. +
14






Ramsay, M. (1997) ‘Women’s and Children’s Rights’ in Ramsay What’s Wrong with
Liberalism? A Radical Critique of Liberal Political Philosophy. London: Continuum.Reanda, L. (1999) ‘Engendering the United Nations: The Changing International
Agenda’, European Journal of Women’s Studies 6(1): 49-70. Schwartzman, L. (1999) ‘Liberal Rights Theory and Social Inequality: A Feminist
Critique’, Hypatia 14 (2): 26-47. +
Smart, C. (1989) ‘The Problem of Rights’ in Feminism and the Power of Law. London:
Routledge. +
Steans (2006) Ch. 8 ‘Women’s Human Rights’ in Steans, J. Gender and International
Relations. Cambridge: Polity Press. +
Winter, B., Thompson, D. and Jeffreys, S. (2002) ‘The UN Approach to Harmful
Traditional Practices’, International Feminist Journal of Politics 4 (1): 72-94. +
Websites
 United Nation High Commission on Human Rights, Women Watch (Website).
www.un.org/womenwatch/
 CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women).
Full text available at: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm
 CEDAW Annotated Bibliography: http://www.iwrp.org/pdf/biblio.pdf
Week 10: Gender and development
Recommended reading
 Annesley, C., Gains, F. and Rummery, K. (eds.) (2007) Women and New Labour.
London: Policy Press. Chapter 11 ‘The Gender Dimension of New Labour’s International
Development Policy’. +1
 Craig, J. (2007) ‘Development’ in Blakeley, G. and Bryson, V. (eds.) The Impact of
Feminism on Political Concepts and Debates. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
 Momsen, J. (2004). Gender and Development. London: Routledge.+
 Staudt, K. (2008) Politics, Gender and Concepts: Theory and Methodology. Chapter 7
‘Gendering Development’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 White, S.C. (1997) ‘Men, Masculinities and the Politics of Development’, Gender and
Development 5 (2): 14-22. +
Additional reading
 Baden, S. and Goetz, A. (1997) ‘Who Needs Sex when you can have Gender?
Conflicting Discourses on Gender at Beijing’ Feminist Review 56: 3-25. +
 Bhavnani, K., Foran, J. and Kurian, P. (2003) ‘An Introduction to Women, Culture and
Development’. In Bhavnani, Floran and Kurian (eds.) (2003) Feminist Futures: ReImagining Women, Culture And Development London: Zed Books +
 Calla, P. and Laurie, N. (2004) ‘Development, Postcolonialism and Feminist Political
Geography’ in Staeheli, L.A. et al (eds.) Mapping Women, Making Politics. London:
Routledge +(1)
 Cornwell, A. (1997) ‘Men, Masculinities and “Gender” in Development’, Gender and
Development 5 (2): 8-13. +
 Hodgson, D. McCurdy, D. and Heryl, A. (eds.) (2001) Wicked Women and the
Reconfiguration of Gender in Africa. Oxford: James Currey. –
 Jacobs, S. (2003) ‘Land Reform: Still a Goal Worth Pursuing for Rural Women?’ Journal
of International Development 14: 887-898. +
 Jackson, C. and Pearson, R. (1998) Feminist Visions of Development: Gender, Analysis
and Policy. Chapters by Kandiyoti and Molyneux. London: Routledge. +
 Jackson, C. (2003) ‘Gender analysis of Land: Beyond Land Rights for Women’, Journal
of Agrarian Change 3(4): 453-480. +
 Jahan, R. (1995) The Elusive Agenda: Mainstreaming Women in Development. London:
Zed Books. +(2)
15

















Kabeer, N. (1994) Reversed Realities: Gender Hierarchies in Development Thought.
London: Verso. +
Kevane, M. (2004) Women and Development in Africa: How Gender Works. Boulder,
CO: Lynne Rienner. +
Koczberski, G. (1998) ‘Women in Development: A Critical Analysis’, Third World
Quarterly 19 (3): 395-409. +
Lang, J. (2003) ‘Evolving the Gender Agenda: Men, Gender and Development
Organisations’ United Nations Report available at
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/men-boys2003/EP10-Lang.pdf +
McIllwaine, C. and Datta, K. (2003) ‘From Feminising to Engendering Development’,
Gender, Place and Culture 10(4): 369-382. +
Moser, C. (1993) Gender Planning and Development: Theory, Practice and Training.
London: Routledge. +
Nussbaum, M. (2000) Women and Human Development. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. +(2)
Porter, M. and Judd, E. (2002) Feminists Doing Development. London: Zed Books. + (1)
Rai, S. (2002) Gender and the Political Economy of Development. Cambridge: Polity
Press. Rowan-Campbell, D. (ed.) (1999) Development with Women. Oxford: Oxfam+
Waylen, G. (1994) ‘Women and Democratization: Conceptualizing Gender Relations in
Transition Politics’, World Politics 46 (3): 327-354. +
Sen, G. and Grown, C. (eds.) (1988) Development Crises and Alternative Visions: Third
World Women’s Perspectives. New York: Monthly Review Press. +
Staudt, K. (1995) ‘The Impact of Development Policies on Women’ in Hay, M. and
Stichter, S. (eds.) African Women South of the Sahara. Harlow: Longman. +
United Nations (1995) ‘The Revolution for Gender Equality’, Human Development
Report. Available at http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_1995_overview1.pdf
Visvanathan, N. et al (eds.) (1996) The Women, Gender and Development Reader.
London: Zed Books. +
Yoon, M. Y. (2001) ‘Democratization and Women’s Legislative Representation in SubSaharan Africa’, Democratization 8(2): 169-190. +
Young, K. (1993) Planning Development with Women: Making a World of Difference.
London: Macmillan. +
Websites:
- http://www.bridge.ids.ac.uk/ BRIDGE, Institute of Development Studies
- http://www.gdrc.org/gender/link-resources.html Women and Development Resources on the
Internet
- http://www.worldbank.org/gender/ World Bank’s ‘Gender and Development’ Portal
- http://www.undp.org UN Development Programme+
- http://www.unifem.org/ UN Development Fund for Women+
- http://home.developmentgateway.org/ ‘Development Gateway’ World Bank+
- http://www.dfid.gov.uk UK Department for International Development+
- http://web.uct.ac.za/org/agi/ African Gender Institute, University of Cape Town+
- http://www.sardc.net/widsaa/ Women in Development Southern Africa Awareness+
Summary of essay titles weeks 1 – 5



What does ‘the personal is political’ mean and what relevance does it have in the 21st
century?
Evaluate the contributions of the feminist research approach to political science.
Briefly summarise the ‘gender gap’ in the 2008 American presidential election. Evaluate
whether the term ‘gender gap’ adequately describes men and women’s voting
preferences.
16



Is women’s descriptive representation a necessary precursor to their substantive
representation?
Critical mass is a key concept for those promoting gender quotas. Evaluate the debates
around critical mass and critical actors. Which do you find more convincing and why?
Are quotas an effective way to increase women’s representation?
Summary of essay titles weeks 6 – 10





Gender mainstreaming is a way to make visible the gendered nature of assumptions,
processes and outcomes in policies. Compare and evaluate the different ways in which
the concept of ‘gender equality’ can be used in the mainstreaming process.
Evaluate the view of Steve Smith: ‘The most productive focus [in IR] is on gender, not
women or feminism.’
Review three sex-stereotypes of women which underpin the analysis of armed conflict.
How has the application of a gendered perspective altered the study of armed conflict?
Feminism has challenged and re-conceptualised the limited notions of ‘human rights’.
Discuss this process with reference to two examples.
In what ways has the application of the concept of gender altered development
programmes? Answer in reference to one case study.
17