Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:32:17.633Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Family values? Sexism and heteronormativity in Feminist Evolutionary Analytic (FEA) research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2018

Helen M. Kinsella  and
Laura Sjoberg
Helen M. Kinsella
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Laura Sjoberg*
Affiliation:
University of Florida
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, we focus on the subset of evolutionary theorising self-identified as Feminist Evolutionary Analytic (FEA) within security studies and International Relations. We offer this accounting in four sections. First, we provide a brief overview of the argument that reproductive interests are the ‘origins’ of international violence. Second, we break down the definitions of gender, sex, and sexuality used in evolutionary work in security studies generally and in FEA specifically, demonstrating a lack of complexity in FEA’s accounts of the potential relations among the three and critiquing their essentialist heteronormative assumptions. Third, we argue that FEA’s failure to reflect on the history and context of evolutionary theorising, much less contemporary feminist critiques, facilitates its forwarding of the state and institutions as primarily neutral and corrective bulwarks against male violence. Fourth, we conclude by outlining what is at stake if we fail to correct for this direction in feminist, IR, and security research. We argue that FEA work misrepresents and narrows the potential for understanding and responding to violence, facilitating the continued instrumentalisation of women’s rights, increased government regulation of sexuality, and a more expansive form of militarism.

Keywords

GenderEvolutionFeminismWarConflictTerrorism
Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , April 2019 , pp. 260 - 279
Copyright
© British International Studies Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, for example, Thayer, Bradley A., ‘Bringing in Darwin’, International Security, 25:2 (2000), pp. 124–151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gat, Azar, ‘So why do people fight? Evolutionary theory and the causes of war’, European Journal of International Relations, 15:4 (2009), pp. 571–599 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hudson, Valerie, Ballif-Spanvill, Bonnie, Caprioli, Mary, and Emmett, Chad F., Sex and World Peace (New York: Columbia University Press, 2012)Google Scholar.

2 Hudson, Valerie, Bowen, Donna Lee, and Nielsen, Perpetua Lynne, ‘What is the relationship between inequity in family law and violence against women?’, Politics & Gender, 7:4 (2011), pp. 453–492 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 The argument that states’ involvement in reproduction is essentialist is not new here. See, for example, Yuval-Davis, Nira, Gender and Nation (London: Sage, 1998)Google Scholar; Stevens, Jacqueline, Reproducing the State (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999)Google Scholar; Spike Peterson, V., A Critical Rewriting of the Global Political Economy (New York: Psychology Press, 2003)Google Scholar; and Spike Peterson, V., ‘Political identities/nationalism as heterosexism’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 1:1 (1999), pp. 34–65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For recent applications, see Spike Peterson, V., ‘Sex matters: a queer history of hierarchies’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 16:3 (2014), pp. 389–409 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weissman, Anna, ‘Repronormativity and the reproduction of the nation-state: the state and sexuality collide’, Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 13:3 (2017), pp. 277–305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Parashar, Swati, Tickner, J. Ann, and True, Jacqui (eds), Revisiting Gendered States (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Our interest is in the specific relationship between this analysis and evolutionary theorising, specifically FEA.

4 It is not that the claim is political that we find problematic. Nor is it the potential uses of biology, per se, as providing a purchase on politics. Rather, as we explain throughout, it is the particular political implications of this work as deployed to structure policy. See Buss, David and Schmitt, David, ‘Evolutionary psychology and feminism’, Sex Roles, 64:9–10 (2011), pp. 768–787 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Hudson, Bowen, and Nielsen, ‘What is the relationship’.

6 See, for example, Bouvier, Virginia, Gender and the Role of Women in Colombia’s Peace Process (New York: UN Women, 2016)Google Scholar; Busby, Joshua and Hurlburt, Heather, ‘Do women matter to national security?’, Washington Post (2 February 2017)Google Scholar; and Steinem, Gloria, ‘Gloria Steinem discusses sex & world peace’, Early Bird Books (28 April 2015), available at: {https://earlybirdbooks.com/sex-world-peace-valerie-hudson}Google Scholar.

7 See, for example, Hudson, Bowen, and Nielsen, ‘What is the relationship’; Valerie Hudson et al., Sex and World Peace; McDermott, Rose, ‘A feminist scientific approach to the analysis of politics and gender’, Politics and Gender, 9:1 (2013), pp. 110–115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Hudson, Bowen, and Nielsen, ‘What is the relationship’, p. 455. Evolutionary biology and psychology provide an account of ‘the ultimate causes of human behavior in terms of natural selection’. See Hudson, Valerie M., Caprioli, Mary, Ballif-Spanvill, Bonnie, McDermott, Rose, and Emmett, Chad Fife, ‘The heart of the matter’, International Security, 33:3 (2008), pp. 7–45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 12). Oppression is ‘selected’ though ‘not genetically determinant’. Hudson, Bowen, and, Nielsen, ‘What is the relationship’, p. 468.

9 Hudson et al., Sex and World Peace, p. 155.

10 This suggestion that security studies work that relies on evolutionary biology oversimplifies sex, gender, and sexuality is not an argument that evolutionary biology itself necessarily does. Roughgarden, Joan, ‘Evolution and the embodiment of gender’, GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 10:2 (2004), pp. 287–291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Fausto-Sterling, Anne, Sexing the Body (New York: Basic Books, 2000)Google Scholar, cited herein as critics of dichotomous understandings of sex and gender, as well as of sex selection narrowly defined, are evolutionary biologists suggesting sophisticated understandings of sex and gender.

11 Lopez, Anthony and McDermott, Rose, ‘Adaptation, heritability, and the emergence of evolutionary political science’, Political Psychology, 33:3 (2012), pp. 343–362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Modelski, George and Poznanski, Kazimierz, ‘Evolutionary paradigms in the social sciences’, International Studies Quarterly, 49:3 (1996), pp. 315–319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Lopez, Anthony and McDermott, Rose, ‘Adaptation, heritability, and the emergence of evolutionary political science’, Political Psychology, 33:3 (2012), pp. 343–362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Hatemi, Peter and McDermott, Rose, ‘A neurobiological approach to foreign policy analysis’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 8:2 (2012), pp. 111–129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goetze, David and James, Patrick, ‘Evolutionary psychology and the explanation of ethnic phenomena’, Evolutionary Psychology, 2:1 (2004), pp. 142–159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Hibbing, John, ‘Ten misconceptions concerning neurobiology and politics’, Perspectives on Politics, 11:2 (2013), pp. 475–489 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Gat, ‘So why do people fight?’, p. 575.

17 Thayer, Bradley, Darwin and International Relations (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2009), p. 108 Google Scholar.

18 Gat, ‘So why do people fight?’, p. 582.

19 Hatemi, Peter and McDermott, Rose (eds), Man is by Nature a Political Animal (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2011), p. 24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Thayer, Darwin and International Relations; Gat, ‘So why do people fight?’.

21 Thayer, ‘Bringing in Darwin’.

22 Thayer, Darwin and International Relations, p. 20.

23 Thayer, Bradley A. and Hudson, Valerie, ‘Sex and the shaheed’, International Security, 4:1 (2010), pp. 37–62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Ibid., pp. 44, 51.

25 Ibid., p. 50.

26 Goezte and James, ‘Evolutionary psychology’, pp. 154, 155.

27 Charney, Evan and English, William, ‘Genopolitics and the science of genetics’, American Political Science Review, 107:2 (2013), pp. 382–395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Gilady, Lilach and Hoffmann, Matthew, ‘Darwin’s finches or Lamarck’s giraffes, does International Relations get evolution wrong?’, International Studies Review, 15:3 (2013), pp. 307–327 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Bell, Duncan, ‘Beware of false prophets’, International Affairs, 82:3 (2006), pp. 493–510 (pp. 495, 501–02)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 For evolutionary security theorising, see, for example, work cited in fn. 10.

31 Hudson et al., Sex and World Peace.

32 Hudson et al., ‘The heart of the matter’.

33 Hatemi and McDermott (eds), Man is by Nature a Political Animal, p. 4.

34 See Sjoberg, Laura, Kadera, Kelly, and Thies, Cameron G., ‘Reevaluating gender and IR scholarship’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62:4 (2018), pp. 848–870 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, in response to Reiter, Dan, ‘The positivist study of gender and International Relations’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 59:7 (2015), pp. 1301–1326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Hudson et al., Sex and World Peace, p. 91.

36 Ibid., p. 6.

37 Gat, ‘So why do people fight?’, p. 575.

38 Laqueur, Thomas Walter, Making Sex (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990)Google Scholar.

39 Hyde, Janet Shibley, Half the Human Experience (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2012)Google Scholar, p. 35; see also Keller, Evelyn Fox, The Mirage of a Space between Nature and Nurture (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Solanki, Gopika, ‘The retelling of tales’, Politics & Gender, 9:1 (2013), pp. 105–110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Hatemi and McDermott (eds), Man is by Nature a Political Animal, p. 19.

41 Reis, Elizabeth, Bodies in Doubt (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009)Google Scholar.

42 Currah, Paisley, Juang, Richard M., and Minter, Shannon Price (eds), Transgender Rights (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006), p. 52 Google Scholar.

43 Irni, Sari, ‘Steroid provocations’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 41:3 (2016), pp. 507–529 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gill-Peterson, Julian, ‘The technical capacities of the body’, TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 1:3 (2014), pp. 402–418 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Shackelford, Todd and Weekes-Shackelford, Viviana (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Violence, Homicide, and War (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Buss, David and Schmitt, David, ‘Evolutionary psychology and feminism’, Sex Roles, 64:9–10 (2011), pp. 768–787 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Buss, David (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2005)Google Scholar.

46 Trivers, Robert, Natural Selection and Social Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 74 Google Scholar.

47 Buss (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, p. 689.

48 Trivers, Natural Selection and Social Theory, p. 68.

49 Roughgarden, ‘Evolution and the embodiment of gender’.

50 Roughgarden, Joan, Evolution’s Rainbow (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004), p. 168 Google Scholar; Hubbard, Ruth, The Politics of Women’s Biology (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1990), p. 11 Google Scholar; Fausto-Sterling, Anne, Sexing the Body (New York: Basic Books, 2000), p. 183 Google Scholar.

51 Roughgarden, Evolution’s Rainbow, p. 178; Fuentes, Agustin, ‘It’s not all sex and violence’, American Anthropologist, 106:4 (2004), pp. 710–718 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Fry, Douglas P., ‘Life without war’, Science, 336:6083 (2013), pp. 879–884 Google Scholar; Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer, Mothers and Others (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011)Google Scholar; Weissman, Anna, ‘Sex, sexuality, reproduction, and international security’, in Caron Gentry, Laura Shepherd, and Laura Sjoberg (eds), Routledge Handbook on Gender and Security (London: Routledge, 2018)Google Scholar.

53 Bell, Duncan, MacDonald, Paul K., and Thayer, Bradley A., ‘Start the evolution without us’, International Security, 26:1 (2001), pp. 187–198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 McDermott, ‘A feminist scientific approach’, p. 113.

55 Poovey, Mary, A History of the Modern Fact (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1998), p. xii CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Hudson, Bowen, and Nielsen, ‘What is the relationship?’, p. 464.

57 Butler, Judith, ‘Revisiting bodies and pleasures’, Theory, Culture & Society, 16:2 (1999), pp. 11–20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hyde, Half the Human Experience; Richardson, Sarah, Sex Itself (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Keller, Evelyn Fox, Reflections on Gender and Science (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Hird, Myra, ‘Considerations for a psychoanalytic theory of gender identity and sexual desire’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28:4 (2003), pp. 1067–1092 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Joel, Daphna and Fausto-Sterling, Anne, ‘Beyond sex differences’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371:1688 (2015), 20150451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Buss (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology; Petersen, Jennifer L. and Hyde, Janet, ‘A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007’, Psychological Bulletin, 136:1 (2010), pp. 21–38 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Keller, Reflections on Gender and Science.

59 See Bagemihl, Bruce, Biological Exuberance (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

60 Gopika, , ‘The retelling of tales’; Seth Palmer, ‘Asexual inverts and sexual perverts’, TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 1:3 (2014), pp. 368–386 Google Scholar.

61 Fausto-Sterling, Sexing the Body, p. 565.

62 Ibid., p. 733; Palmer, ‘Asexual inverts and sexual perverts’.

63 Currah, Paisley and Moore, Lisa Jean, ‘“We won’t know who you are”’, Hypatia, 24:3 (2009), pp. 113–135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Currah, Paisley and Mulqueen, Tara, ‘Securitizing gender: Identity, biometrics, and transgender bodies at the airport’, Social Research, 78:2 (2011), pp. 557–582 Google Scholar.

65 Buss (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, p. 557.

66 McDermott, ‘A feminist scientific approach’, p. 113.

67 McDermott and Hatemi (eds), Man is by Nature a Political Animal.

68 Sjoberg, Laura and Gentry, Caron E., Mothers, Monsters, Whores (London: Zed Books, 2007); Gentry, Caron and Sjoberg, Laura, Beyond Mothers, Monsters, Whores (London: Zed Books, 2015)Google Scholar; MacKenzie, Megan, ‘Securitization and desecuritization’, Security Studies, 18:2 (2009), pp. 241–261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Parashar, Swati, ‘Feminist International Relations and women militants: Case studies from Sri Lanka and Kashmir’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22:2 (2009), pp. 235–256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McEvoy, Sandra, ‘Loyalist women paramilitaries in Northern Ireland’, Security Studies, 18:2 (2009), pp. 262–286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Fine, Cordelia, Rebecca Jordan-Young, Anelis Kaiser, and Gina Rippon, ‘Plasticity, plasticity, plasticity … and the rigid problem of sex’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17:11 (2013), pp. 550–551 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Meynell, Letitia, ‘Evolutionary psychology, ethology, and essentialism (because what they don’t know can hurt us)’, Hypatia, 27:1 (2012), pp. 3–27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70 Butler, Judith, Gender Trouble (New York: Routledge, 1990), p. 10 Google Scholar.

71 Fausto-Sterling, Sexing the Body, p. 3.

72 Hudson et al., Sex and World Peace, p. 18.

73 Keller, Reflections on Gender and Science, p. 163.

74 Ibid., p. 164.

75 Hudson et al., Sex and World Peace, p. 180.

76 Butler, Judith, Notes Toward a Performative Theory of Assembly (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015), p. 7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 Crane, Betsy and Crane-Seeber, Jesse, ‘What does evolution have to do with legal enclaves?’, Politics & Gender, 9:1 (2013), pp. 100–105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Irigaray, Luce, This Sex Which Is Not One, trans. Catherine Porter and Carolyn Burke (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985)Google Scholar.

78 Crane and Crane-Seeber, ‘What does evolution have to do with legal enclacves?’, p. 102; See also Nayak, Meghana, ‘The false choice between universalism and religion/culture’, Politics & Gender, 9:1 (2013), pp. 120–125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 Hudson et al., Sex and World Peace, p. 123.

80 Wrangham, Richard W. and Peterson, Dale, Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1996)Google Scholar.

81 Hudson et al., Sex and World Peace, p. 46.

82 Ibid., p. 74. If radical feminists were to say this now (as they did in the late 1970s) we would venture that IR scholarship and national policy would not tarry a moment with such a theory. Yet, FEA repeatedly does to no ill effects – and we suspect it has something to do with their proposed solution.

83 Hudson, Valerie, ‘Sex, war, and peace’, Political Psychology, 31:1 (2010), pp. 33–39 (p. 36)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

84 Terry, Jennifer, ‘“Unnatural acts” in nature: the scientific fascination with queer animals’, GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 6:2 (2000), pp. 151–193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

85 Edelman, Lee, No Future (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004), p. 2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

86 Rohy, Valerie, ‘On homosexual reproduction’, differences, 23:1 (2012), pp. 101–130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 And, indeed, this appears to be a growing conclusion. See, for example, Schacht, Ryan, Rauch, Kristin Liv, and Mulder, Monique Borgerhoff, ‘Too many men’, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29:4 (2014), pp. 214–222 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Zuk, Marlene, Sexual Selections (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002)Google Scholar.

88 Hudson, Valerie, ‘The Founding Template: Male-Female Relations’, Women Peacemakers Program (May 2014), pp. 44–46, available at: {https://www.womenpeacemakersprogram.org/assets/CMS/May-24-gender-/May-Pack-2014-web.pdf}Google Scholar.

89 Hudson, Valerie, Bowen, Donna Lee, and Nielsen, Perpetua Lynne, ‘We are not helpless’, PRISM: Journal of the Center for Complex Operations, 6:1 (2016), pp. 122–139 Google ScholarPubMed (p. 129).

90 Hudson et al., Sex and World Peace, p. 71.

91 Buss (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, p. 156.

92 Hudson, ‘Sex, war, and peace’, p. 35.

93 However, see Oyewumi, Oyeronke, ‘Family bonds/conceptual binds’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 25:4 (2000), pp. 1093–1098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who disputes the claim that genitals organise difference universally.

94 Hudson, Bowen, and Nielsen, ‘We are not helpless’.

95 Bowen, Donna Lee, Hudson, Valerie M., and Nielsen, Perpetua Lynne, ‘State fragility and structural gender inequality in family law’, Laws, 4:4 (2015), pp. 654–672 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96 Hudson et al. in Sex and World Peace could be read as citing Derrida as a ‘supplement’ – an addition or substitution to their work, encoding a key to deconstruct the universal presumed and revealing the evolutionary narrative as deeply immersed in the politics of its own making.

97 Derrida, Jacques, Deconstruction and Philosophy, ed. John Sallis (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1987), p. 198 Google Scholar.

98 Hudson et al. Sex and World Peace, p. 98.

99 Ibid.

100 Buss (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, p. 160.

101 Wilson, Elizabeth A., Gut Feminism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2015), p. 28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

102 Hudson, Bowen, and Nielsen, ‘We are not helpless’.

103 Hudson, ‘Sex, war, and peace’, p. 34.

104 Ibid., p. 35; Hudson, ‘The founding template’; Hudson, Bowen, and Nielsen, ‘What is the relationship?’.

105 Butler, Judith, ‘Against proper objects’, differences, 6:2/3 (1994), pp. 1–26 Google Scholar.

106 Butler, Gender Trouble, p. 4.

107 Haraway, Donna, Primate Visions (New York: Routledge, 1989)Google Scholar; Foucault, Michel, ‘Society Must Be Defended’: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–76 (New York: Picador, 2003)Google Scholar. See also Hughey, Matthew W. and Byrd, W. Carson, ‘Beautiful melodies telling me terrible things’, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 661:1 (2015), pp. 238–258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Solanki, ‘The retelling of tales’.

108 Hatemi and McDermott, ‘A neurobiological approach’, p. 122.

109 Ibid., p. 121.

110 Stern, Alexandra Minna, Eugenic Nation Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America (Berkeley: University of CA Press, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

111 In this regard, we can only point to the controversy over the ‘warrior gene’ (McDermott and Hatemi (eds), Man is by Nature a Political Animal; McDermott, Rose, Tingley, Dustin, Cowden, Jonathan, Frazzetto, Giovanni, and Johnson, Dominic, ‘Monoamine Oxidase A gene (MAOA) predicts behavioral aggression following provocation’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 106:7 (2009), pp. 2118–2223)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, which was then taken to explain African American men’s higher propensity for violence.

112 See, for example, Collins, Patricia Hill, ‘It’s all in the family: Intersections of gender, race, and nation’, Hypatia, 13:3 (1998), pp. 62–82 CrossRefGoogle Scholar for discussions of gender, Darwinism, and eugenics policies; Spike Peterson’s A Critical Rewriting of the Global Political Economy discussions of reproductive economies; as well as recent discussions of the gendered and raced elements of the state’s regulation of reproduction, for example, Htun, Mala and Weldon, S. Lauren, The Logics of Gender Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weissman, ‘Repronormativity’; Wilcox, Lauren B., Bodies of Violence (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

113 Hudson, Bowen, and Nielsen, ‘What is the relationship?’, p. 454.

114 Hudson, ‘Sex, war, and peace’, p. 36.

115 Solanki, ‘The retelling of tales’, p. 108.

116 Hudson, ‘Sex, war, and peace’, p. 36.

117 McDermott, Rose and Cowden, Jonathan, ‘Polygyny and violence against women: Paper symposium’, Emory Law Journal, 64:6 (2014), pp. 1767–1814 Google Scholar; Abu-Lughod, Lila, ‘Do Muslim women really need saving?’, American Anthropologist, 104:3 (2002), pp. 783–790 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

118 ‘Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’ (27 January 2017), available at: {https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states/}.

119 Hudson et al., Sex and World Peace, p. 131.

120 Towns, Ann, Women and States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

121 Hudson et al., Sex and World Peace, p. 117.

122 Ferguson, Kathy E., The Feminist Case against Bureaucracy (New Orleans, LA: Temple University Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Davis, Angela, Abolition Democracy (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2005)Google Scholar; Richie, Beth, Arrested Justice (New York: New York University Press, 2012)Google Scholar; Brown, Wendy, States of Injury (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Kapur, Ratna, ‘Gender, sovereignty and the rise of sexual security regime in international law and postcolonial India’, Melbourne Journal of International Law, 14:2 (2013), pp. 317–345 Google Scholar.

123 Brown, States of Injury, p. 170.

124 Bumiller, Kristin, In an Abusive State (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008), p. 13 Google Scholar.

125 Richie, Arrested Justice, pp. 3, 20.

126 Ibid., p. 20.

127 Hudson et al., Sex and World Peace, p. 29.

128 Ibid., p. 28.

129 Hudson et al., ‘State fragility’, p. 655.

130 Halley, Janet, ‘What is family law?’, Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 23:1 (2011), pp. 1–109 Google Scholar.

131 Ibid.; Htun, Mala and Weldon, Laurel, ‘Sex Equality in Family Law’, Background Paper to the World Development Report (Washington DC: World Bank, 2011), available at: {https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/9204/WDR2012-0006.pdf?sequence=1}Google Scholar.

132 Butler, Gender Trouble, p. 2.

133 Halley, ‘What is family law?’, pp. 81, 95.

134 Agacinski’s book from which these authors quote is one that Derrida dismissed for its ‘biologism and conservativism’. See Peeters, Benoit, Derrida: A Biography, trans. Andrew Brown (Cambridge: Polity, 2012), p. 514 Google Scholar. Yet, these authors are repeatedly quoted in FEA scholarship as if their arguments and works were synchronous and in agreement.

135 Robcis, Camille, The Law of Kinship (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2013), p. 13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

136 Ibid.

137 Agacinski, Sylviane, Parity of the Sexes (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), p. 65 Google Scholar.

138 Ibid.

139 Ibid.

140 Hudson et al., Sex and World Peace.

141 See discussions in fn. 110. See also specific discussions on this point, for example, Crane and Crane-Seeber, ‘What does evolution have to do with legal enclaves?’.

142 Oosterveld, Valerie, ‘The definition of gender in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’, Harvard Human Rights Journal, 18:1 (2005), pp. 55–84 Google Scholar.

143 Hudson, Valerie and Leidl, Patricia, The Hillary Doctrine (New York: Columbia University Press, 2015), p. 178 Google Scholar.

144 Kinsella, Helen M., The Image before the Weapon (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kinsella, Helen M., ‘Sex as the secret: Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan’, International Theory (forthcoming)Google Scholar.

145 Stoler, Ann Laura, Race and the Education of Desire (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1995), pp. 34–35 Google Scholar.

146 Kapur, ‘Gender, sovereignty’, p. 434.

147 Sjoberg, Laura, Gendering Global Conflict (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013)Google Scholar; Cohn, Carol, Kinsella, Helen M., and Gibbings, Sheri, ‘Women, peace and Security Resolution 1325’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 6:1 (2004), pp. 130–140 Google Scholar.

148 Otto, Dianne, ‘The exile of inclusion’, Melbourne Journal of International Law, 10:1 (2009), pp. 11–26 Google Scholar.

149 MacKenzie, ‘Securitization and desecuritization’.

150 Ahmed, Sara, ‘A phenomenology of whiteness’, Feminist Theory, 8:2 (2007), pp. 149–168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

151 Zalewski, Marysia, ‘Do we understand each other yet? Troubling feminist encounters with(in) International Relations’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 9:2 (2007), pp. 302–312 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

152 Whitworth, Sandra, Men, Militarism, and UN Peacekeeping: A Gendered Analysis (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004), p. 71 Google Scholar.

153 Hudson, Bowen, and Nielsen, ‘What is the relationship?’.

154 See discussion in Kronsell, Annica, Gender, Sex and the Postnational Defense: Militarism and Peacekeeping (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

155 See discussion in Picq, Manuela and Thiel, Markus (eds), Sexualities in World Politics (New York: Routledge, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

156 See Hudson, Bowen, and Nielsen, ‘We are not helpless’.

157 Aoláin, Fionnuala Ní, ‘The “war on terror” and extremism: Assessing the relevance of the Women, Peace and Security Agenda’, International Affairs, 92:2 (2016), pp. 275–291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

158 Hudson et al., Sex and World Peace, p. 75.

159 Scott, Joan W., Gender and the Politics of History (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), p. 34 Google Scholar.

160 Esposito, Roberto, Bíos: Biopolitics and Philosophy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008), p. 22 Google Scholar.

161 Hudson, Valerie M. and Cohen, Dara Kay, ‘Women’s rights are a national security issue’, New York Times (26 December 2016), available at: {https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/26/opinion/womens-rights-are-a-national-security-issue.html}Google Scholar.

162 Ibid.