Gender, War, and Peace

Abstract

The relationships between gender and war are complex. Ways of thinking about gender and war influence the questions asked, the knowledge sought, and the meaning given to evidence. In psychological research, sex role theory is the standard explanation for findings of difference between women and men in attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors related to war. Feminist inquiry suggests several viable alternatives to sex role theory: feminist psychoanalysis, feminist moral theory, and social constructionism. This article examines these four epistemological positions and their potential claims about women's and men's psychological and moral responses to war, peace, and the nuclear threat. Each theory is examined for its utility and limits. We argue that a social constructionist orientation provides a particularly useful way of thinking about and researching both the intersections of gender and war and possible solutions to the human problems posed by war and the nuclear threat.