Gender in IR: Security, War and Militarism
Paul Roe
Course Description and Aims
This course is concerned with gender ‘in’ International Relations. More specifically, it is concerned with
how the primary function of the sovereign state, security, and the most visible manifestations of state
security, war and militarism, both construct and are sustained by specific masculinities and femininities,
and how these particular gender constructions impact on the lives of particular groups of men and women.
Since the late 1980s, feminist critiques of so-called ‘Traditional’ International Relations (IR) have been
some of the most sustained; accusing the discipline not only of having maintained an almost total gender
blindness, but also of an active resistance on the part of many IR scholars to the import of feminist works.
And nowhere has such resistance been stronger than in the field of Security, or more accurately, Strategic
Studies. This course will explores some of the main areas of contention.
Set against this, the aim of the course is mainly threefold: firstly, to (re)introduce how the discipline
has traditionally thought about war and peace; secondly, to reveal the gendered constructions and
inequalities that mark the traditional scholarship; and thirdly, to evaluate the specific contribution that
feminist critiques have made as part of the so-called ‘Critical Turn’ in IR.
The course can be seen as complimentary to the previous ‘International Security Studies’ course.
Although desirable in this way, prior knowledge of Security Studies is not, however, a necessity for
taking the course.
Course Structure
Firstly, the general context of the debate is established, before, secondly, going on to look at how the
discipline of IR has been constituted and sustained by a number of so-called ‘hegemonic’ masculinities’.
Although for some an initial focus on masculinity may well represent an unwanted move away from the
feminist project, for others, because International Relations is constructed around men and masculinity,
destabilising the subject of ‘man’ necessarily also destabilises the IR field in ways that the so-called ‘add
women’ approach perhaps cannot. In the third section, though, the focus indeed shifts to how IR has
excluded certain femininities. In particular, it looks at how women can be both the agents and the victims
of militarisation and the practices of security, and also at possible resistances to such practices.
Learning Outcomes
The course is designed to produce the following main learning outcomes:
The ability to identify IR’s traditional assumptions informing thinking about war and peace;
The ability to comprehend the gendered nature of what makes war and thinking about war possible;
The ability to recognise in what way feminist-informed critiques of IR both constitute and contribute to
debates as part of so-called Critical Security Studies;
The ability to both recognise and formulate questions that contribute to such existing debates.
Teaching Method
For this course, there are no lectures. Instead, students will participate in seminars where they are
expected to form their own opinions through ‘critical’ evaluation of the readings. At the post-graduate
level, it is up to students to do most of the work. Seminar discussion will be structured around a short
presentation of the topic, in which students will (briefly) summarise and then critique the readings. For
each seminar, there will be one or two key texts (which are in the course reader). The purpose of the
seminar is to ‘analyse’ and ‘evaluate’ ideas. Seminar discussion depends on serious preparation by
students. It is therefore crucial that you do all of the reading required and come into the seminar fully
prepared to actively take part in the discussion. For the topics discussed, there is not necessarily a right
answer. What is important is to focus on the way that people think.
Method of Assessment
Each student will be assessed through a combination of seminar contribution and written work. In terms
of written work, two research papers (approximately 4,000 words) are required; one mid-term and one
end-term. The topics for the papers are of the students own choosing. For each of the two research papers
35% of the overall grade is allocated (total 70%). The remaining 30% is devoted to seminar attendance
and contribution.
Guidelines for Assessment
The research paper is the most important element as part of the overall assessment. In terms of grading
the term paper, the categories below provide some guidance as to what qualities assessors are looking for,
and what kinds of weakness may incline assessors towards giving a lower mark.
A
Work of exceptional quality that authoritatively demonstrates knowledge and
understanding of the topic. Well argued, organised, and structured. Critical awareness of
the theoretical and/or empirical material, and shows originality of thought.
A-
Work of high quality that is well above the average for a postgraduate paper. Not
necessarily faultless in terms of the above, but still shows some originality of thought.
B+
A very competent piece of work displaying substantial knowledge and understanding.
There may well be room for improvement in terms of organisation and structure,
although in general terms the work is solid.
B
Again a piece of some competence. More improvement than the above will be required
organisationally and structurally. Work at this level may also display some
oversimplification and irrelevance.
B-
An adequate piece of work, but where significant improvements must be made. Too
much oversimplification and irrelevance. Required points are missing. Work may also
contain serious grammatical errors.
C+
Inadequate. A work displaying far too many of the above weaknesses.
F
A totally unacceptable piece of work. Fail.
Week 1/Seminar 1. Introduction: 1
This first seminar will act as a brief introductory class where the nature of the course is discussed,
together with the expectations of both the professor and students. Here, initial oral presentations will be
assigned.
Week 1/Seminar 2. Introduction: 2
The content of this seminar is to be announced.
Week 2/Seminar 3. The Nature of the Debate: IR and Gender/Gender and IR (?)
Key Text:
J. Ann Tickner, ‘You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR
Theorists’, International Studies Quarterly, vol.41, no.4, 1997.
Further Reading:
Adam Jones, ‘Does ‘Gender’ Make the World Go Round? Feminist Critiques of International Relations’,
Review of International Studies, vol.22, no.3, 1996.
Tickner, ‘What is Your Research Programme? Some Feminist Answers to International Relations
Methodological Questions’, International Studies Quarterly, vol.49, no.1, 2005.
Gillian Youngs, ‘Feminist International Relations: A Contradiction in Terms? Or: Why Women and
Gender are Essential to Understanding the World We Live In’, International Affairs, vol.80, no.1, 2004.
Robert O. Keohane, ‘Beyond Dichotomy: Conversations Between International Relations and Feminist
Theory’, International Studies Quarterly, vol.42, no.1, 1998.
Craig N. Murphy, ‘Seeing Women, Recognizing Gender, Recasting International Relations’,
International Organization, vol.50, no.3, 1996.
Marysia Zalewski, ‘Do We Understand Each Other Yet? Troubled Feminist Encounters With(in)
International Relations’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol.9, no.3, 2007.
Christine Sylvester, ‘Tensions in Feminist Security Studies
Week 2/Seminar 4. A Question of Men? Masculinities in IR
Key Texts:
Charlotte Hooper, ‘Masculinities in IR and the ‘Gender Variable’: A Cost-Benefit Analysis for
(Sympathetic) Gender Sceptics’, Review of International Studies, vol.25, no.3, 1999.
Further Reading:
Zalewski & Jane Parpart (eds.), The “Man” Question in International Relations (Boulder: Westview
Press, 1998), Chapter 3: Steve Smith, ‘“Unacceptable Conclusions” and the “Man” Question:
Masculinity, Gender, and International Relations’; Chapter 5: Craig N. Murphy, ‘Six Masculine Roles in
International Relations and their Interconnection: A Personal Investigation’.
Parpart & Zalewski (eds.), Rethinking the Man Question: Sex, Gender and Violence in International
Relations (London: Zed Books, 2008), Chapter 2: Kevin Dunn, ‘Interrogating White Male Privilege’.
Terrell Carver, ‘Men in the Feminist Gaze: What does this Mean for IR?’, Millennium, vol.37, no.1, 2008.
Jan Jindy Pettman, Worlding Women: A Feminist International Politics (New York: Routledge, 1996,
Chapter 5: ‘Men, Masculinities and War’.
Hooper, Manly States: Masculinities, International Relations, and Gender Politics (New York: Columbia
University Press, 2001), Chapter 2: ‘Masculinities and Masculinism’; Chapter 3: ‘Masculinities in
International Relations’.
Stefan Dudink, Karen Hagerman, & John Tosh (eds.), Masculinities in Politics and War (Manchester:
MUP, 2004), Chapter 3: Tosh, ‘Hegemonic Masculinity and the History of Gender’.
Week 3/Seminar 5. Film: Saving Private Ryan
For this seminar there will be a screening of Saving Private Ryan. The film allows for a continued
interrogation of hegemonic masculinities and, in particular, the cultural construction of the politics of
soldiering: What kind of a ‘man’ does it take to be a soldier? And, also necessarily: What reflections of
womanhood make such a construction possible?
Further Reading:
Carol Cohn (with Cynthia Weber), ‘Missions, Men and Masculinities’, International Feminist Journal of
Politics, vol.1, no.3, 1999.
Cynthia Enloe, The Morning After: Sexual Politics at the End of the Cold War (Berkely: University of
California Press, 1993), Chapter 3: ‘Beyond Steve Canyon and Rambo: Histories of Militarized
Masculinity’.
Jean Bethke Elshtain, Women and War (Brighton: Harvester Press, 1987), Chapter 6: ‘Men: The Militant
Many/The Pacific Few’.
Week 3/Seminar 6. Militarised Masculinity: Men at War
Key Text:
Joanna Bourke: Dismembering the Male: Men’s Bodies and the Great War (London: Reaktion Book,
1996), Introduction: ‘Embodiment’; Chapter 3: ‘Bonding’.
Further Reading:
Paul R. Highgate (ed.), Military Masculinities (London: Praeger, 2003), Chapter 2: John Hockey, ‘No
More Heroes: Masculinity in the Infantry’; Chapter 4: Rachel Woodward, ‘Locating Military
Masculinities: Space, Place, and the Formation of Gender Identity and the British Army’; Chapter 9: Lois
Bibbings, ‘Conscientious Objectors in the Great War: The Consequences of Rejecting Military
Masculinities’.
Dudink et al (eds.), Masculinities in Politics and War, Chapter 10: Sonya O. Rose, ‘Temperate Heroes:
Concepts and Masculinities in Second World War Britain’.
Hannah Hale, ‘The Development of British Military Masculinities through Symbolic Resources’, Culture
and Psychology, vol.14, no.3, 2008.
Miriam Cooke & Angela Woollacott (eds.), Gendering War Talk (Princeton: PUP, 1993), Chapter 4:
Lynda E. Boose, ‘Techno-Mascularity and the “Boy Eternal”: From the Quagmire to the Gulf’.
Zalewski & Papart (eds.), The “Man” Question in International Relations, Chapter 6: Steve Niva, ‘Tough
and Tender: New World Order Masculinity and the Gulf War’.
Week 4/Seminar 7. Film: GI Jane
Maintaining the focus on the politics of soldiering, in this seminar there will be a screening of GI Jane.
The readings for this seminar (see below) draw attention to how a hegemonic, militarised masculinity is
constructed and maintained through processes of ‘othering’ according intersections between gender,
national, and racial identities.
Further Reading:
Carver, ‘GI Jane: What are the ‘Manners’ that ‘Maketh a Man’?’, British Journal of Politics and
International Relations, vol.9, no.3, 2007.
Gillian Youngs/Debbie Lisle/Zalewski, ‘Three Readings of GI Jane’, International Feminist Journal of
Politics, vol.1, no.3, 1999.
Week 4/Seminar 8. Militarised Masculinity: The Politics of Peacekeeping
Key Text:
Claire Duncanson, ‘Forces for Good? Narratives of Military Masculinity in Peacekeeping Operations’,
International Feminist Journal of Politics, vol.11, no.1, 2009.
Further Reading:
Ken Booth (ed.), Critical Security Studies and World Politics (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2005), Chapter 4:
Whitworth, ‘Militarized Masculinities and the Politics of Peacekeeping’.
Sandra Whitworth, Men, Militarism, and UN Peacekeeping (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2004), Chapter 4:
‘Canada: Peacekeeping Country Par Excellence?’; Chapter 6: ‘Militarized Masculinities and Blue Berets’;
Chapter 7: ‘Conclusion: Do Warriors Make the Best Peacekeepers?’
Paul Higate & Marsha Henry, ‘Engendering (In)security in Peace Support Operations’, Security
Dialogue, vol.35, no.4, 2004.
Higate, ‘Peacekeepers, Masculinities, and Sexual Exploitation’, Men and Masculinities, vol.10, no.1,
2007.
Enloe, The Morning After, Chapter 1: ‘Are UN Peacekeepers Real Men? And other Cold War Puzzles’.
Week 5/Seminar 9. The Politics of Soldiering: Gays and Lesbians in the Military
Key Text:
Elizabeth Kier, ‘Homosexuals in the U.S. Military: Open Integration and Combat Effectiveness’,
International Security, vol.23, no.2, 1998.
Further Reading:
Aaron Belkin & Melissa Sheridan Embser-Herbert, ‘A Modest Proposal: Privacy as a Flawed Rationale
for the Exclusion of Gays and Lesbians from the U.S. Military’, International Security, vol.27, no.2,
2002.
Tarak Barkawi & Christopher Dandeker, Melissa Wells Petry, Elizabeth Kier, ‘Rights and Fights: Sexual
Orientation and Military Effectiveness’, International Security, vol.27, no.2, 2002.
Bonnie Moradi & Laura Miller, ‘Attitudes of Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans toward Gay and Lesbian
Service Members’, Armed Forces and Society, vol.36, no.3, 2010.
Zalewski & Parpart (eds.), The “Man” Question International Relations, Chapter 7: Carol Cohn, ‘Gays in
the Military: Texts and Subtexts’.
Week 5/Seminar 10. (Hegemonic) Masculinity and ‘Defence Intellectuals’
Key Text:
Carol Cohn, ‘Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defence Intellectuals’, Signs, vol.12, no.4, 1987.
Further Reading:
Cooke & Woollacott (eds.), Gendering War Talk, Chapter 10: Cohn, ‘Wars, Wimps, and Women:
Talking Gender and Thinking War’.
Cohn & Sara Ruddick, ‘A Feminist Ethical Perspective on Weapons of Mass Destruction’, Boston
Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights, Working Paper No.4, 2003.
Cohn, Felicity Hill, & Ruddick, ‘The Relevance of Gender for Eliminating Weapons of Mass
Destruction’, Disarmament Diplomacy, no.80, 2005.
Week 6/Seminar 11. Gender and the Revolution in Military Affairs
Key Text:
Cristina Masters, ‘Bodies of Technology: Cyborg Soldiers and Militarized Masculinities’, International
Feminist Journal of Politics, vol.7, no.1, 2005.
Further Reading:
Chris Hables Gray (ed.), The Cyborg Handbook (New York: Routledge, 1995), Chapter 2.7: Ken Robins
& Les Levidon, ‘Socializing the Cyborg Self: The Gulf War and Beyond’; Chapter 6.6: Hables Gray &
Steve Mentor, ‘The Cyborg Body Politic’.
Lauren Wilcox, ‘Gendering the Cult of the Offensive’, Security Studies, vol.18, no.2, 2009.
Michael Shapiro, Violent Cartographies: Mapping Cultures of War (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1997), Chapter 2: ‘Warring Bodies and Bodies Politic’; Chapter 3: ‘That Obscure
Object of Violence’.
Peter Singer, ‘Robots at War: The New Battlefield’, The Wilson Quarterly, vol.33, no.1, 2009.
Week 6/Seminar 12. Film: Fahrenheit 9/11
For this seminar, there will be a screening of Fahrenheit 9/11. In doing so, the purpose is to provoke
discussion (for week 7/seminar 13, below) as to how, and with what implications, such a powerful
critique of the Bush administration and the US-led war in Iraq nonetheless largely marginalizes women’s
voices.
Week 7/Seminar 13. A Question of Women? Femininities (not) in IR
Key Texts:
Sarah Rasmusson, ‘Masculinity and Fahrenheit 9/11: The Temperature at Which My Feminist
Temperature Burns’; April Lidinsky, ‘The Gender of War: What Fahrenheit 9/11’s Women (Don’t) Say’;
Jasmine Champenois, ‘God Bless the Army’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, vol.7, no.1,
2005.
Further Reading:
Various Authors, ‘Women: Where are They in Wars and How Can They be Heard’, International
Feminist Journal of Politics, vol.7, no.3, 2005.
Robin L. Riley, ‘So Few of Us and So Many of Them: US Women Resisting Desert Storm’, International
Feminist Journal of Politics, vol.7, no.3, 2005.
Week 7/Seminar 14. The ‘Feminisation’ of the Military (?)
Key Texts:
Martin Van Creveld, ‘The Great Illusion: Women in the Military’; Elshtain, ‘‘Shooting’ at the Wrong
Target: A Response to Van Creveld; Christopher Coker, ‘Humanising Warfare, or Why Van Creveld May
be Missing the Big Picture’, Millennium, vol.29, no.2, 2000.
Further Reading:
Joshua Goldstein, War and Gender (Cambridge: CUP, 2001), Chapter 2: ‘Women Warriors: The
Historical Record of Female Combatants’.
Elisabetta Addis, Valeria E. Russo, & Lorenza Sebesta (eds.), Women Soldiers: Images and Realities
(New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994), Chapter 2: Sebesta, ‘Women and the Legitimation of the Use of
Force: The Case of Female Military Service; Chapter 4: Patricia B. Hanna, ‘An Overview of Stressors in
the Careers of US Servicewomen’.
Lorentzen & Turpin (eds.), The Women and War Reader, Chapter 4: April Carter, ‘Should Women be
Soldiers or Pacifists?’; Chapter 14: Ilene Rose Feinman, ‘Women Warriors/Women Peacekeepers: Will
the Real Feminists Please Stand Up!’
Rachel Woodward & Patricia Winter, ‘Discourses of Gender in the Contemporary British Army’, Armed
Forces & Society, vol.30, no.2, 2004.
Week 8/Seminar 15. Militarised Femininity
Key Text:
Masters, ‘Femina Sacra: The ‘War on Terror’, Women and the Feminine’, Security Dialogue, vol.40,
no.1, 2009.
Further Reading:
Laura Sjoberg & Caron E. Gentry, ‘Reduced to Bad Sex: Narratives of Violent Women from the Bible to
the War on Terror’, International Relations, vol.22, no.1, 2008.
Veronique Pin-Fat, ‘The Scripting of Private Jessica Lynch: Biopolitics, Gender, and the “Feminization”
of the U.S. Military’, Alternatives, vol.30, no.1, 2008.
Deepa Kumar, ‘War Propaganda and the (Ab)Uses of Women: Media Constructions of the Jessica Lynch
Story’, Feminist Media Studies, vol.4, no.3, 2004.
Sjoberg, ‘Agency, Militarized Femininity and Enemy Others: Observations from the War in Iraq’,
International Feminist Journal of Politics, vol., no.1, 2007.
Cynthia Nantais & Martha F. Lee, ‘Women in the United States Military: Protectors or Protected? The
Case of Prisoner of War Melissa Rathbun-Nealy’, Journal of Gender Studies, vol.8, no.2, 1999.
Enloe, The Morning After, Chapter 7: ‘The Politics of Constructing the American Woman Soldier’.
Week 8/Seminar 16. Film: Rape in the Ranks: The Enemy Within
To be confirmed.
Week 9/Seminar 17. Cultural Constructions of Female Political Violence
Key Text:
Carrie Hamilton, ‘The Gender Politics of Political Violence: Women Armed Activists in ETA, Feminist
Review, vol.86, no.1, 2007.
Week 9/Seminar 18. Motherhood and Female Peace/Political Violence
Gentry, ‘Twisted Maternalism: From Peace to Violence’, International Feminist Journal of Politics,
vol.11, no.2, 2009.
Further Reading for 9/17 & 9/18:
Jessica Auchter, ‘Gendering Terror: Discourses of Terrorism and Writing Woman-as-Agent’,
International Feminist Journal of Politics, vol.14, no.1, 2012.
Caroline O. N. Moser & Fiona C. Clarke (eds.), Victims, Perpetrators or Actors? Gender, Armed Conflict
and Political Violence (London: Zed Books, 2001), Chapter 8: Ann Cristina Ibanez, ‘El Salvador: War
and Untold Stories – Women Guerillas’.
Sjoberg ‘Feminist Interrogations of Terrorism/Terrorism Studies’, International Relations, vol.23, no.1,
2009.
Linda Ahall, ‘The Writing of Heroines: Motherhood and Female Agency in Political Violence’, Security
Dialogue, vol.43, no.4, 2012.
Ahall, ‘Motherhood, Myth and Gendered Agency in Political Violence’, International Feminist Journal
of Politics, vol.14, no.1, 2012.
Frances S. Hasso, ‘Discursive and Political Deployments by/of the 2002 Palestinian Women Suicide
Bombers/Martyrs’, Feminist Review, vol.81, no.1, 2005.
Miranda Alison, ‘Women as Agents of Political Violence: Gendering Security, Security Dialogue, vol.35,
no.4, December 2004.
Eileen MacDonald, Shoot the Women First (London: Fourth Estate, 1991).
Week 10/Seminar 19. Gender Inequality, Violence and War
Key Text:
Valerie M. Hudson & Andrea Den Boer, ‘A Surplus of Men, A Deficit of Peace: Security and Sex Ratios
in Asia’s Largest States’, International Security, vol.26, no.4, 2002.
Further Reading:
Mary Caprioli, ‘Primed for Violence: The Role of Gender Inequality in Predicting Internal Conflict’,
International Studies Quarterly, vol.49, no.2, 2005.
Caprioli, ‘Gendered Conflict’, Journal of Peace Research, vol.37, no.1, 2000.
Caprioli & Mark A. Boyer, ‘Gender, Violence and International Crisis’, Journal of Conflict Resolution,
vol.45, no.4, 2001.
Erik Melander, ‘Gender Inequality and Intrastate Armed Conflict’, International Studies Quarterly,
vol.49, no.4, 2005.
Week 10/Seminar 20. War, Sexual Violence and the Politics of Security
Key Text:
Inger Skjelsbaek, ‘Sexual Violence and War: Mapping out a Complex Relationship’, European Journal of
International Relations, vol.7, no.2, 2001.
Further Reading:
Enloe, Maneuvers, Chapter 4: ‘When Soldiers Rape’.
Lene Hansen, ‘Gender, Nation, Rape: Bosnia and the Construction of Security’, International Feminist
Journal of Politics, vol.3, no.1, 2001.
Katrina Lee Koo, ‘Confronting a Disciplinary Blindness: Women, War and Rape in the International
Politics of Security’, Australian Journal of Political Science, vol.37, no.3, 2002.
Miranda Alison, ‘Wartime Sexual Violence: Women’s Human Rights and Questions of Masculinity’,
Review of International Studies, vol.33, no.1, 2007.
Christopher K. Butler, Tali Gluch & Neil J. Mitchell, ‘Security Forces and Sexual Violence: A CrossNational Analysis of a Principle-Agent Argument’, Journal of Peace Research, vol.44, no.6, 2007.
Week 11/Seminar 21. Gendering the Civilian Immunity Principle
Key Text:
R. Charli Carpenter, ‘“Women, Children and Other Vulnerable Groups”: Gender, Strategic Frames and
the Protection of Civilians as a Transnational Issue’, International Studies Quarterly, vol.49, no.2, 2005.
Further Reading:
Sjoberg, ‘Gendered Realities of the Immunity Principle: Why Gender Analysis Needs Feminism’,
International Studies Quarterly, vol.50, no.4, 2006.
Carpenter, ‘Recognizing Gender-Based Violence Against Men and Boys in Conflict Situations’, Security
Dialogue, vol.37, no.1, 2006.
Carpenter, ‘‘Women and Children First’: Gender, Norms, and Humanitarian Evacuation in the Balkans
1991-95’, International Organization, vol.57, no.3, 2003.
Sjoberg, ‘A(nother) Dark Side of the Protection Racket: Targeting Women in Wars’, International
Feminist Journal of Politics, vol.13, no.2, 2011.
Thomas Plumper & Eric Neumayer, ‘The Unequal Burden of War: The Effect of Armed Conflict on the
Gender Gap in Life Expectancy’, International Organization, vol.60, no.2, 2006.
Week 11/Seminar 22. The Militarisation of Prostitution
Key Text:
Andris Zimelis, ‘Human Rights, the Sex Industry and Foreign Troops: Feminist Analysis of Nationalism
in Japan, South Korea and the Philippines’, Cooperation and Conflict, vol.44, no.1, 2009.
Further Reading:
Enloe, Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives (Berkely: University of
California Press, 2000), Chapter 3: ‘The Prostitute, the Colonel, and the Nationalist’.
Marguerite R. Waller & Jennifer Rycenga (eds.), Frontline Feminisms: Women, War, and Resistance
(New York: Routledge, 2001), Chapter 11: Saundra Sturdevant, ‘Who Benefits? U.S. Military,
Prostitution, and Base Conversion’.
Enloe, Bananas, Beaches, and Bases, Chapter 4: ‘Base Women’.
Enloe, Does Khaki Become You? The Militarization of Women’s Lives (London: Pandora, 1988), Chapter
2, ‘The Militarisation of Prostitution’.
Katherine H. S. Moon, Sex Among Allies: Military Prostitution in U.S.-Korea Relations (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1997), Chapter 1: ‘Partners in Prostitution’; Chapter 2: ‘Interstate Relations
and Women’.
Week 12/Seminar 23. Conclusion
The content of this seminar is to be announced.
Week 12/Seminar 24. No Class