This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Johnson, M. Articles by Newcomb, M. D. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Gender, War, and Peace

Rethinking What We Know

625 Fair Oaks, Suite 125, South Pasadena, California 91030.

Michael D. Newcomb, Ph.D.

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.

Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 4, 108-137 (1992)
DOI: 10.1177/0022167892324007


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?