MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6917533544 · doi:10.57912/23863923

Feminism, peace, and international politics: An examination of women organizing internationally for peace and security

2023· dissertation· en· W6917533544 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican University Research Archive · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRealmIdeologyPoliticsInternational relationsFeminismPeace movementGender analysisWomen's history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation examines feminist claims about the relationship between women and peace and men and war against the backdrop of women's roles in organizing for peace and participating in wars in a historical, contemporary, and international context. It argues, through an analysis of feminist theory, peace research, and praxis, that we must move beyond both androcentric and gynocentric constructions of reality, which are both products of patriarchal ideologies and relations that give rise to the dualistic, polemical, and intransigent politics of war and peace. The first three chapters make the case that past and contemporary feminist attempts to idealize women's roles in the private or reproductive realm as a basis for a unified feminist politics, which counters men's "armed civic virtue" with women's "feminine civic virtue," are problematic with respect to the struggles for women's liberation and peace. The next two chapters offer a case study of women's international peace conference held in Halifax, Canada just prior to the final UN Decade for Women events in Nairobi, Kenya in 1985. In exploring the Halifax conference process, which involved over 1,000 women from thirty-three countries, it is found that women do not have homogeneous views on peace and security. In fact, it is shown that women's political identities and priorities in the struggle for peace vary with class, race, culture, and nationality, giving rise to varying, and, sometimes, conflicting "practical" and "strategic" gender interests. However, the conference process did reveal that all women suffer to some degree from the social, economic, and political priorities of patriarchy, capitalism, imperialism, and militarism which depend upon women's undervalued and unremunerated reproductive labor under increasingly oppressive and repressive conditions. The final chapter calls for a feminist political process that enlarges the scope of political change and embraces women's multiple identities, feminisms, and struggles for peace. Such a process opens up the possibility for women to forge more liberatory solidarities with other women and with men to break through the polemics, in discourse and praxis, of women and peace and men and war.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican University Research ArchiveSame topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207