International Studies Quarterly (2013) 57, 772–783

Reconceptualizing Gender, Reinscribing Racial–Sexual Boundaries

in International Security: The Case of UN Security Council
Resolution 1325 on ‘‘Women, Peace and Security’’1
Nicola Pratt
University of Warwick
The gendered boundaries of international security, historically identified by feminist scholarship, are being broken down
since the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1325, which calls on member states to mainstream a gender perspec-
tive into matters of conflict and peacebuilding. However, we should not read this as a positive step toward the transforma-
tion of the lives of women (and men) in conflict zones. Reading 1325 and subsequent resolutions through a postcolonial
feminist lens reveals that this reconceptualization of gender occurs through a reinscription of racial–sexual boundaries,
evocative of the political economy of imperialism. An examination of the discourses and practices of the ‘‘war on terror’’
exposes a similar configuration of gender, race, and sexuality. I argue that 1325 works in tandem with dominant security
practices and discourses in the post-9 ⁄ 11 moment, normalizing the violence of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency
measures. Understanding the significance of race and sexuality in the conceptualization of gender has implications for
transnational feminist praxis and its ability to construct a counter-hegemonic project to transform the dominant
structures of power that give rise to war, conflict, insecurity, and injustice.

This article examines current reconfigurations of notions
of gender, race, and sexuality in discourses and practices
of international security through an examination of UN
Security Council Resolution 1325, passed in 2000, and sub-
sequent resolutions aimed at mainstreaming a ‘‘gender
perspective’’ into matters of conflict and peacebuilding.2
Since its passage, Resolution 1325 has been enthusiasti-
cally advocated and adopted by a range of actors—includ-
ing international NGOs, women activists in conflict zones,
UN agencies, and some national governments. At the time
of writing, 37 national governments had created National
Action Plans to implement 1325, including the United
States, several European countries, and countries emerg-
ing from conflict.
The advocacy of 1325 represents an attempt by
feminists and other international activists to construct
alternative conceptions of international security and, con-
sequently, should be considered ‘‘a profoundly political
project’’ (McDonald 2002:295). Practices and under-
standings of security and insecurity depend upon the
identification of boundaries between ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘them’’
and particular constructions of Self ⁄ Other, which are
1
Author’s notes: I am very grateful to Nick Vaughan-Williams and the two
anonymous referees for constructive feedback and encouragement. I thank all
those who commented on earlier versions of this paper as presented at the
departments of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick, and
International Relations, University of Sussex, as well as the 2011 British Inter-
national Studies Association conference and the ‘‘Reconceptualising Gender:
Transnational Perspectives’’ international network, Birzeit University, Pales-
tine, funded by the British Academy. This article emerged from my research
as part of the projects, ‘‘Women and Gender in the Political Transition in
Iraq’’ and ‘‘Women and the Arab-Israeli Conflict,’’ both funded by the British
Academy.
2
The subsequent UN Security Council resolutions are as follows: 1820
(passed in 2008), which recognizes sexual violence in conflict as a matter of
international security; 1888 (of 2009), which provides for mechanisms to
strengthen the implementation of UNSCR 1820; 1889 (of 2009), which
addresses obstacles to women’s participation in peace processes and peace
building; and 1960 (of 2010) which further strengthens calls to implement
1888 and 1889.
Pratt, Nicola. (2013) Reconceptualizing Gender and Reinscribing Racial–Sexual Boundaries in International Security: The Case of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on ‘‘Women,
Peace and Security’’. International Studies Quarterly, doi: 10.1111/isqu.12032
 2013 International Studies Association
gendered, racialized, sexualized, and class-ed (Said 1978;
Agathangelou and Ling 2004; Pettman 2005). Particular
configurations of gender, race, class, and sexuality under-
pin dominant discourses and practices of international
security (based on neo ⁄ realism as dominant theory and
practice). In turn, dominant understandings and prac-
tices of ‘‘international security’’ normalize a particular
configuration of social relations, which, in turn, underpin
particular structures of power that secure dominant social
forces within the existing system of international relations
(IR) (Cox 1981; Tickner 1992; Booth 2005). This article
asks, what happens to racialized and sexualized structures
of power when gender is ‘‘mainstreamed’’ in interna-
tional security? And what are the implications of this for
the security of women and men in conflict zones, as well
as for transnational feminist praxis?
This article revisits the question of the relationship
between security and gender and the ways in which this
relationship is reconfigured through Resolution 1325
using a lens of postcolonial feminism. Postcolonial
theorist Anne McClintock notes that gender ‘‘come[s]
into existence in and through relation to [race, class, and
sexuality]—if in contradictory and conflictual ways’’
(McClintock 1995:5). Yet, those scholars, practitioners,
and activists who debate the effectiveness of Resolution
1325 and the associated agenda of ‘‘Women, Peace and
Security’’ prioritize gender as a relation of power (Cohn,
Kinsella, and Gibbings 2004; Cohn 2008; Shepherd
2008a; Pratt and Richter-Devroe 2011), with implications
for how they see the ontology of international security
and possibilities for its transformation.
This article begins by examining feminist arguments
that Resolution 1325 challenges dominant conceptions of
security. It then proceeds to highlight the silencing of
postcolonial feminism within the Resolution, thereby pro-
ducing a particular configuration of gender, race, and
sexuality. The article explores how this configuration of
 Nicola Pratt
gender, race, and sexuality reinscribes racial–sexual hier-
archies in international security, evoking continuities and
discontinuities with colonialism. These reconfigurations
of gender, race, and sexuality are, in turn, mirrored in
the discourses and practices of the ‘‘war on terror.’’ I
argue that rather than challenging or dismantling the
dominant practices and discourses of international secu-
rity, 1325 enables the ‘‘international community’’ to har-
ness women’s agency in the reproduction of racial–sexual
hierarchies of power that are mobilized in the production
of post-9 ⁄ 11 security discourses and practices. In this
respect, 1325 is part of what Anna Agathangelou and
L.H.M. Ling call the ‘‘neoliberal imperium,’’ ‘‘an over-
arching hegemonic project [that] encompasses states,
governments, classes, and sets of ideologies that work in
tandem to validate one another’’ (Agathangelou and
Ling 2009:2–3).
Feminisms, Security, and Gender
The passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1325, on
‘‘Women, Peace and Security,’’ in 2000, represented the
first time that the UN Security Council had discussed
women and gender in relation to peace and security
(Cohn 2008). The resolution, which was passed unani-
mously at a special meeting of the Security Council in
October 2000, seeks to mainstream an official sensitivity
to gender within UN institutions, as well as the decision-
making processes of all governments, with regard to con-
flict resolution, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding; to
include more women in all institutions involved with the
prevention, management, and resolution of conflict; and
to protect the rights of women, particularly with regard
to ending gender-based violence, in wartime (United
Nations Security Council 2000). Resolution 1325 has
since been followed by Resolutions 1820 (in 2008), 1888
(in 2009), 1889 (in 2009), and 1960 (in 2010) with the
aim of further reinforcing the aims of 1325 to increase
women’s participation in peacebuilding and conflict
resolution and to protect women and girls from sexual
violence in wartime.
Supporters of the Resolution regard it as ‘‘path break-
ing.’’ According to Felicity Hill of UNIFEM, ‘‘... what’s
key is that 1325 implies the potential for a really radical
shift in how they [the Security Council] think about
peace and security, let alone how they deliver peacekeep-
ing operations and peace agreements’’ (Hill, Cohn, and
Enloe 2004:4). Carol Cohn, a feminist academic, while
also recognizing the limits of the Resolution, notes,
‘‘…1325 puts women squarely in the center of efforts to
end armed conflicts and create sustainable peace… It is a
recognition that gender is central to security …’’ (Hill
et al. 2004:7). Such statements are embedded within a
belief that 1325 challenges the realist conception of secu-
rity engrained within the Security Council, which has
been blind to gender as a relation of power and margin-
alized women as authentic political actors in the interna-
tional sphere (Peterson 1992; Tickner 1992; Enloe 2001).
Feminist scholars have argued that the conceptualiza-
tion of IR and international security, both in practice and
in mainstream scholarship, depends historically upon the
relegation of women to a domestic ⁄ national sphere, to be
protected by the (male) political and military leaders who
dominate the sphere of international politics (Tickner
1992; Peterson and Runyan 1999; Enloe 2001). In other
words, realist conceptions of security are constituted
through gendered binaries: male ⁄ female; protector ⁄ pro-
773
tected; international ⁄ domestic; war ⁄ peace; active ⁄ passive
(Tickner 1992). In effect, advocates of 1325 believe that
the Resolution breaks down these binaries. Crucially,
1325 represents women not only as passive victims of con-
flict and in need of (male) protection, but also as ‘‘effec-
tive actors in peace and peacebuilding’’ (Felicity Hill and
Maha Muna in Cohn et al. 2004:132). The trope of
‘‘woman as victim’’ has long been critiqued by feminist
scholars as essentially denying their ability for autono-
mous agency and opening the way for the ‘‘logic of
masculinist protection’’ to be enacted (Young
2003)—whether at an interpersonal, societal, or state
level. This shift in the conceptualization of women within
the sphere of international security is welcomed by advo-
cates of Resolution 1325 as paving the way for achieving
peace and security that is inclusive of women’s needs.
However, this article will argue that while 1325 reconfig-
ures the gendered binaries of international security, it
does so by reinscribing racialized and sexualized hierar-
chies in the conceptualization and practice of interna-
tional security.
In order to reveal the processes of reconfiguration and
reinscription, I begin by tracing the genealogy of 1325 to
three particular strands of feminism, namely liberal femi-
nism, difference or cultural feminism, and radical femi-
nism. Several authors have questioned the degree to
which 1325 can be considered to be a feminist project,
arguing that the resolution is the outcome of a compro-
mise among various civil society groups making up the
NGO Working Group on Women, Peace and Security, of
which, only one, the Women’s International League for
Peace and Freedom can be labeled ‘‘feminist,’’ as well as
between the NGO Working Group and the UN Security
Council (Cohn 2008; Shepherd 2008b; Harrington 2011).
I argue that tracing the genealogies of the resolution
enables us to identify those strands of feminist knowledge
that are excluded from or compromised in 1325 and to
understand how particular strands of feminist knowledge
can become conflated with the dominant international
security agenda to produce, what Janet Halley calls, ‘‘gov-
ernance feminism’’ (Halley 2006:20–22).
First, UNSCR 1325 may be seen to address the histori-
cal concerns of liberal feminists to increase women’s rep-
resentation in official bodies, from national governments
to UN missions, as well as at the peace negotiating table.
Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, a high-profile researcher, trai-
ner, advocate, and writer on issues relating to women’s
participation in peace and security, states that, ‘‘1325 has
become a tool for empowering women, enabling them to
mobilize on a global scale to assert their demands for a
place at the table when issues of war and peace are
addressed and resolved’’ (Anderlini 2007). It is claimed
that increasing women’s representation is necessary to
ensure that post-conflict and peacebuilding processes
include women’s concerns and address women’s needs
(Heyzer 2003; Porter 2005; Gender Action on Peace and
Security [GAPS] 2011). In line with such thinking, Reso-
lution 1325 ‘‘urges Member States to ensure increased
representation of women at all decision-making levels in
national, regional and international institutions and
mechanisms for the prevention, management, and resolu-
tions of conflict’’ as well as other articles calling for
increasing women’s participation in UN structures and
missions to conflict zones (United Nations Security Coun-
cil 2000, Article 1).
‘‘Difference’’ or ‘‘cultural’’ feminists argue that women
play a key role in opposing war and building peace.
774 Reconceptualizing Gender, Reinscribing Racial–Sexual Boundaries

Indeed, many peace groups throughout history and

around the world are women’s groups ⁄ feminist groups
(Yuval-Davis 1997; Enloe 2001; Cockburn 2007) including
the Women’s International League for Peace and Free-
dom (Confortini 2011), which is one of the main initia-
tors and advocates of 1325. Advocates of 1325 believe
that ensuring women’s inclusion in peacebuilding and
conflict resolution will not only end conflict but will
increase the likelihood that peace agreements are hon-
ored (Hunt and Posa 2001; GAPS (2011), among others).
Recognizing women’s ‘‘special’’ peacebuilding roles, UN-
SCR 1325 ‘‘calls on all actors involved, when negotiating FIG 1. Configuration of Race, Gender and Sexuality in Colonial Era:
and implementing peace agreements, to adopt […] mea- ‘‘White Men Saving Brown Women from Brown Men’’ (Spivak
sures that support local women’s peace initiatives and 1988)
indigenous processes for conflict resolution, and that
involve women in all of the implementation mechanisms
of the peace agreements …’’ (United Nations Security
rists argue that the binaries and hierarchies of
Council 2000, Article 8b).
imperialism continued to exist after formal decoloniza-
Finally, UNSCR 1325 reflects the concerns historically
tion and throughout the Cold War, and with this the
associated with radical feminism regarding violence
continued victimization of the ‘‘third-world woman’’
against women and girls (Brownmiller 1975; Kelly 1987).
(Chowdhry 1995; Alexander and Mohanty 1997; Chow-
Following several decades of transnational women’s orga-
dhry and Nair 2002).
nizing around the issue of rape as a weapon of war, the
As discussed above, the passage of 1325 was heralded
statutes of the International Criminal Court, established
by many activists for reconceptualizing women in conflict
in 1998, defined rape and other types of sexual violence
zones from mere victims to active participants in peace-
as a war crime (Bunch, Antrobus, Frost, and Reilly 2001).
building and conflict resolution, arguably giving voice to
UNSCR 1325 ‘‘calls on all parties to armed conflict to
‘‘third-world women’’ in conflict zones. However, reading
take special measures to protect women and girls from
1325 against Gayatri Spivak’s observation of the political
gender-based violence, particularly rape and other forms
economy of imperialism reveals a reconfiguration of gen-
of sexual abuse, and all other forms of violence in situa-
der, race, and sexuality rather than the dismantling of
tions of armed conflict’’ and ‘‘emphasizes the responsibil-
the binaries and hierarchies underpinning imperialism
ity of all States to put an end to impunity and to
(see Figure 2). Below, I categorize and characterize these
prosecute those responsible for […] sexual and other vio-
reconceptualizations and reinscriptions based on Zillah
lence against women and girls’’ (United Nations Security
Eisenstein’s analysis of the continual transformation and
Council 2000, Article 11).
reconfiguration of ‘‘the meaning of gender along with its
We see that 1325 privileges gender above race, class, or
relationship to the sexed and raced body’’ (Eisenstein
other significant relations of power in understanding
2007). She terms the fluidity and diversity of these new–
women’s experiences and responses to conflict. This priv-
old configurations of gender–race–sex as: ‘‘re-gendering
ileging of gender is inextricably linked to a conceptualiza-
gender,’’ ‘‘re-sexing gender,’’ and ‘‘re-racing race’’
tion of women as agents of peacebuilding, on the one
(Eisenstein 2007:xiii). I subject these categorizations to a
hand, and as particularly vulnerable targets of violence in
postcolonial feminist gaze in order to produce further
war, on the other hand. These themes are developed in
analysis and categorizations: ‘‘re-sexing race’’ and ‘‘securi-
subsequent UN resolutions, as discussed later.
tization of gendered racial–sexual boundaries.’’3

A Postcolonial Feminist Reading of Resolution 1325

Re-Gendering Gender
By identifying those feminisms present in 1325, I aim to
According to Eisenstein, ‘‘re-gendering gender’’ is the
make visible those strands of feminism that are absent in
process whereby ‘‘women become more modern and
the Resolution: namely black ⁄ postcolonial feminist under-
diverse as women’’ (Eisenstein 2007:xiii). Resolution 1325
standings of women, peace, and war (El-Saadawi 1980;
is ‘‘re-gendering gender’’ by calling for women’s inclu-
Amos and Parmar 1984; Mohanty 1988; Alexander and
sion in the processes of conflict resolution, peacebuild-
Mohanty 1997; Eisenstein 2004, among others). I do not
ing, and peacemaking. Unlike the political economy of
claim that this exclusion is the result of an explicit pro-
imperialism identified by Spivak, 1325 does not represent
cess but rather is the inadvertent consequence of those
‘‘brown women’’ ⁄ women in conflict zones as mere vic-
compromises necessary to produce ‘‘governance femi-
tims, waiting to be rescued by ‘‘white men,’’ but also as
nism.’’
agents. As noted above, it is this reconceptualization, or
I read Resolution 1325 through a postcolonial lens in
‘‘re-gendering,’’ of gender (from victim to peacemaker)
order to understand how it may relate to ‘‘continuities
that advocates see as the most significant aspect of the
and discontinuities between contemporary and inherited
resolution and that is interpreted as breaking down the
practices […] in understanding contemporary relations
binaries of mainstream international security, which are
and hierarchies... at this juncture in history’’ (Alexander
based on the relegation of women to a domestic sphere
and Mohanty 1997:xxi). The postcolonial critic Gayatri
to be protected by male statesmen and soldiers.
Spivak describes colonial relations in terms of ‘‘white
men saving brown women from brown men’’ (Spivak
1988:92) (see Figure 1). She highlights the hierarchies of 3
Nevertheless, I disagree with Zillah Eisenstein’s evaluation of 1325 as a
race, gender, and sexuality that are central to the politi- positive step toward building peace (Eisenstein 2007: 9), for the reasons dis-
cal economy of imperialism. Postcolonial feminist theo- cussed in the rest of this article.
 Nicola Pratt
FIG 2. New Configurations of Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the
Post-9 ⁄ 11 Moment (Re-Gendering Gender, Re-Racing Race, Re-Sex-
ing Gender, Re-Sexing Race)
Resolution 1889 (2009) reiterates ‘‘the need for the
full, equal and effective participation of women at all
stages of peace processes given their vital role in the preven-
tion and resolution of conflict and peacebuilding’’ (United
Nations Security Council 2009b, Preamble; my emphasis).
There has been some debate among scholars and activists
over the wisdom of essentializing women as peacebuilders
in 1325, with several scholars considering such a repre-
sentation as a possible constraint upon women’s agency
(Gibbings 2004; Cohn 2008; Shepherd 2008a). However,
in response to such arguments, Felicity Hill of UNIFEM
quotes women from the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Bou-
gainville, and Fiji, saying: ‘‘[...] Peacebuilder, decision
maker, whatever argument works, let us in! […] Let us
into the Security Council, into the decision-making fora,
into the rooms of the elusive place, let women in’’ (Cohn
et al. 2004:138). In other words, some women choose to
use this essentialized identity to leverage themselves into
spaces historically dominated by men. Resolution 1889
not only reproduces the image of ‘‘women as peace-
builder’’ but further instrumentalizes women’s role in
the achievement of peace. In this way, 1889 perhaps is
the end product of years of gender-mainstreaming advo-
cates ‘‘marketing’’ women as ‘‘untapped resources’’ for
the decision makers at the UN (Gibbings 2011:529). This
raises questions about the degree to which Resolutions
1325 and 1889 constitute tools for women activists in con-
flict zones to lever themselves into spaces historically
dominated by men or that these resolutions enable the
UN Security Council to instrumentalize women activists
in conflict zones for the objectives of the Security Council
(Cohn et al. 2004; Cohn 2008).
Moreover, as Laura Shepherd argues, there are ‘‘seri-
ous, (infra-)structural inhibitors that may well impede the
(superheroic) activities of the women in post-conflict soci-
eties’’ (Shepherd 2011:511). The Preamble of Resolution
1889 states that ‘‘the persistent obstacles to women’s full
involvement in the prevention and resolution of conflicts
and participation in postconflict public life,’’ are ‘‘a
result of violence and intimidation, lack of security and
lack of rule of law, cultural discrimination and stigmatiza-
tion, including the rise of extremist or fanatical views on
women, and socioeconomic factors including the lack of
access to education.’’ The juxtaposition of violence,
intimidation, lack of security, and rule of law with ‘‘cul-
tural discrimination and stigmatization’’ and ‘‘extremist
or fanatical views’’ implicitly links the obstacles to
women’s participation with the ‘‘barbaric masculinities’’
775
and ‘‘irrational patriarchy’’ of the ‘‘brown men’’ in con-
flict zones. Yet, many scholars of gender and conflict
argue that violence and insecurity are not the result of
‘‘culture’’ and ‘‘fanatical views’’ but of the undermin-
ing ⁄ lack of national state institutions to guarantee secu-
rity and provide essential services, a political system
whose legitimacy is rooted in patronage or which has no
widespread legitimacy, a political economy that fails to
guarantee equal distribution of resources, the inflow of
small arms from external actors, and a backlash against
foreign military ⁄ humanitarian interventions, among other
factors that may empower conservative actors and ⁄ or facil-
itate violence against women (Giles and Hyndman 2004;
Cockburn 2007; Kandiyoti 2007; Al-Ali and Pratt 2009b;
Farr, Myrttinen, and Schnabel 2009; Shalhoub-Kevorkian
2009; Al-Ali and Pratt 2011, among others). Violence
against women and the (re)production of conservative
gender ideologies are inextricably linked to political, eco-
nomic, and military processes in which other UN mem-
ber states, including permanent members of the Security
Council, may be implicated and cannot be simply
reduced to the ‘‘barbarism’’ and ‘‘irrationality’’ of
‘‘brown men.’’
While Resolution 1889 represents ‘‘brown men’’ in
conflict zones as obstacles to women’s participation in
peace processes, the international community is urged to
‘‘to take further measures to improve women’s participa-
tion during all stages of peace processes, particularly in
conflict resolution, post-conflict planning and peacebuild-
ing … through inter alia promoting women’s leadership
and capacity to engage in aid management and planning,
supporting women’s organizations, and countering nega-
tive societal attitudes about women’s capacity to partici-
pate equally’’ (United Nations Security Council 2009b,
Article 1). The role of the international community in
facilitating women’s agency in conflict zones is also high-
lighted in a report on women’s participation in peace
processes, issued to coincide with the tenth anniversary
of the passage of 1325. Based on findings from six coun-
try case studies, the report recommends a number of
measures to be carried out by the UN to raise the profile
of 1325, to provide relevant training and monitoring, to
coordinate relevant stakeholders, to provide necessary
finance, to support women in peacemaking processes,
and to use conditionality to hold states accountable for
the implementation of 1325 (Anderlini and Tirman
2010). Advocacy of women’s participation has become
conflated with the design of a technical blueprint for
how the international community can support women’s
agency. In so doing, the international community posi-
tions itself as the savior of the ‘‘brown women’’ from the
‘‘brown men,’’ evoking the language of colonialism (Spi-
vak 1988; Ahmed 1992; Yeĝenoĝlu 1998:100). Ultimately,
the re-gendering of gender (or the reconceptualization
of gender) is enabled by the reinscription of racial–sexual
hierarchies, in which the international community is posi-
tioned above the conflict zone.
Re-Racing Race
‘‘Re-racing race’’ consists of ‘‘black women becoming
white’’ (Eisenstein 2007:xiii). On the one hand, women
activists in conflict zones are ‘‘marketed’’ at the UN for
their value in providing ‘‘grounded’’ knowledge to the
Security Council; yet, they are simultaneously heard by
the UN because they claim to ‘‘embody the universal
principles of peace and security as opposed to the local
776 Reconceptualizing Gender, Reinscribing Racial–Sexual Boundaries
(tribal or ethnic) interests of particular communities’’
(Gibbings 2011:529–531). Conversely, ‘‘brown women’’
who refuse to comply with the principles of the UN are
excluded from the peacemaker role, as illustrated by
Sheri Gibbings’s ethnographic study, in which Iraqi
women activists, invited to speak to a group of gender
experts at the UN, were labeled by the latter as ‘‘angry’’
because the Iraqi women did not ‘‘speak positively about
women’s efforts in the reconstruction of Iraq and the
role the UN could play’’ (Gibbings 2011:525) but,
instead, they ‘‘condemned the invasion by the USA and
UK as imperialist and critiqued the UN for its lack of sup-
port’’ (Gibbings 2011:524). In effect, the re-gendering of
gender is dependent upon women activists’ compliance
with the universal and liberal principles upon which reso-
lutions such as 1325 are based. Through this compliance,
women activists are ‘‘re-raced’’ as part of the interna-
tional community, while ‘‘brown men’’ are implicitly
represented as unable to rise above the particularities
of ‘‘class, ethnic, or political divisions of the nation’’
(Gibbings 2011:531).
Re-Sexing Gender
‘‘Re-sexing gender’’ refers to ‘‘females acting like men’’
(Eisenstein 2007:xiii). I argue that the ‘‘re-sexing’’ of
gender in relation to 1325 and subsequent resolutions
occurs through the call to introduce more women into
peacekeeping missions. By encouraging the participation
of women in the masculinist protection of women and
girls in conflict zones, 1325 and subsequent resolutions
‘‘re-sex gender.’’ This reconceptualization of gender is
constituted by and constitutive of the reinscription of
racial–sexual boundaries in international security.
According to Resolution 1820, the role of peacekeepers
is to ‘‘protect civilians, including women and children,
and prevent sexual violence against women and girls in
conflict and post-conflict situations’’ (United Nations
Security Council 2008, Article 8). Peacekeeping missions
are, historically, ‘‘highly masculinized in nature’’ given
that they are predominantly made up of (male) soldiers
trained for combat (Whitworth 2004; Simic 2010:189).
The norm of militarized masculinity dominant within
peacekeeping missions has been viewed as a cause of
peacekeeper violence and abuse toward those popula-
tions that they are supposed to be protecting (Whitworth
2004).
Resolution 1820 urges troop-contributing countries to
‘‘deploy[…] a higher percentage of women peacekeepers
or police’’ (Art. 8). Several observers argue that this call
is not a form of gender mainstreaming but rather a
means of dealing with the problem of peacekeeper vio-
lence and sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) (Vayrynen
2004; Whitworth 2004; Simic 2010; Harrington 2011; Jen-
nings 2011), which is implicitly recognized in Resolution
1325 and subsequent resolutions. Kathleen Jennings
summarizes the arguments made by scholars, practitio-
ners, and activists in favor of including more women in
peacekeeping missions as: ‘‘protection’’ (of civilians,
particularly women and children); ‘‘assistance to victims
of sexual violence’’; ‘‘deterring and reducing sexual
violence’’; ‘‘practical’’ (strategic tasks); ‘‘inspirational’’
(Jennings 2011:3–4). These arguments about female
peacekeepers, like those of women as peacebuilders, are
predicated upon the assumption that women have innate
qualities, linked to their sex role, of being peaceful
and nurturing, which make them better equipped for
peacekeeping (Whitworth 2004:126; Simic 2010:190; Jen-
nings 2011:7–8).
If only viewed through a lens of gender, women’s
inclusion in peacekeeping may appear to be a case of
‘‘add women and stir,’’ without fundamentally challeng-
ing the masculinist norms that dominate peacekeeping
missions (Whitworth 2004; Jennings 2011:9). However,
when viewed through multiple lenses of gender, sexuality,
and race, women’s inclusion in peacekeeping plays a fun-
damental role in reinscribing racial–sexual boundaries.
The presence of women peacekeepers embodies the
proof of the ‘‘democratic values’’ of the international
community, and they are depicted as ‘‘inspiring’’ to and
‘‘empowering’’ local women (UN News Centre 2009). In
this way, female peacekeepers enable the reinscription of
the racialized hierarchy embedded within a ‘‘narrative
[…] in which international institutions are the bearers of
progressive human rights and democratic values to local
peoples in need of those rights and values in the post-
Cold War era’’ (Orford 2003:158). The gendered, racial-
ized, and sexed bodies of women peacekeepers are
absorbed into the overall narrative of peacekeeping, of
‘‘white knights’’ and of ‘‘dark threats’’ (Razack 2004), as
well as enabling the reproduction of that narrative. Their
presence operates to restore the notion of peacekeeping
as an act of (white ‘‘masculinist) protection of civilians in
conflict zones without the threat of peacekeeper sexual
aggression (which, instead, becomes a problem of
‘‘brown men’’ in conflict zones).
Re-Sexing Race
By ‘‘re-sexing race,’’ I refer to the way in which racial
difference is constructed through supposed sexualized
difference (Nagel 2003). The focus on sexual violence in
1325 and subsequent resolutions operate to re-sex race by
representing ‘‘brown men’’ as perpetrators of sexual vio-
lence and ‘‘brown women’’ as victims of this violence.
Simultaneously, this ‘‘re-sexing of race’’ silences the
voices of women in conflict zones and re-legitimizes
‘‘white masculinist’’ protection.
As noted above, international activists lobbied for years
to get rape and sexual violence recognized as a war
crime. By calling on ‘‘all parties to armed conflict to take
special measures to protect women and girls from gen-
der-based violence, particularly rape and other forms of
sexual abuse...’’ (United Nations Security Council 2000,
Article 10), 1325 (and subsequent resolutions) provides
further recognition of sexual violence as not only a seri-
ous problem for women in conflict zones but as a prob-
lem for international security (Anderson 2010). Yet,
scholars have also critiqued the way in which sexual vio-
lence is addressed within the resolutions, arguing that
they ‘‘fix gender as a pathological relationship based on
sexed bodies’’ (Shepherd 2008a, 95); ignore the issue of
sexual violence against men, which also occurs in war
(Alison 2007); and create ‘‘a multi-layered hierarchy of
victims’’ (Aroussi 2011:588).
When read against the Resolution’s racialized hierarchy
of the international community vs the conflict zone, it is
not only that men are essentialized as violent and women
are essentialized as victims, but that 1325 reproduces the
racialized–sexualized and gendered hierarchies of colo-
nialism. Colonial discourse has often hyper-sexualized col-
onized men (Fanon 1967), representing them as the
perpetrators of ‘‘barbaric’’ practices of controlling
women’s sexuality (Kabbani 1986; Mohanty 1988; Spivak
 Nicola Pratt
1988). Resolution 1325 re-codes ‘‘brown men’’ as the
‘‘parties to armed conflict’’ who are responsible for vio-
lence against women (including sexual violence) and
‘‘white men’’ as the international community responsible
for protecting ‘‘brown women’’ by ‘‘prosecut[ing] those
responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, and
war crimes including those relating to sexual and other
violence against women and girls’’ (United Nations Secu-
rity Council 2000, Article 11).
Resolutions 1820 (2008), 1888 (2009), and 1889
(2009) go further in the re-sexing of race. These resolu-
tions focus almost exclusively on sexual violence by par-
ties to conflict (for example, see UNSCR 1820, Article 2).
This is in contrast to 1325 that refers to sexual violence
as one among other types of violence perpetrated in con-
flict zones. Moreover, these resolutions provide further
requests for the UN system to monitor sexual violence
and to train peacekeepers to protect women and girls
from sexual violence (United Nations Security Council
2008, Article 6; United Nations Security Council
2009a:26). This is despite the implicit recognition of sex-
ual violence committed by UN peacekeeping personnel
(Resolution 1820, Article 7) (also, see section above).
While sexual violence committed by the (‘‘brown’’) par-
ties to conflict is considered a war crime, sexual violence
perpetrated by UN peacekeepers is ‘‘a technically man-
ageable problem’’ (Harrington 2011:569), through
‘‘training and appropriate preventative action, including
pre-deployment and in-theater awareness training, and
other action to ensure full accountability in cases of such
conduct involving [troop and police contributing coun-
tries’] personnel’’ (UNSCR 1820, Article 7).
Resolution 1325 and subsequent resolutions provide
mechanisms for the international community to prose-
cute sexual violence against women and girls in conflict
and to use sanctions against perpetrators of such vio-
lence. As Sahla Aroussi argues, such mechanisms of
accountability do not necessarily assist the victims of vio-
lence, who may be in need of reparation, compensation,
restoration, and restitution (Aroussi 2011:588). She goes
on to warn against the danger that ‘‘the grand project of
dispensing justice for women victims does not become a
political cover-up for interventionist policies that have
nothing to do with women’s wellbeing’’ (Aroussi
2011:590). I would argue that the danger is not that 1325
and subsequent resolutions become a ‘‘cover-up’’ for
interventionist policies but rather that these resolutions
re-legitimize (‘‘white’’) masculinist protection of women
and girls in conflict zones, pathologize men in conflict
zones as perpetrators of sexual violence, and effectively
silence the victims of sexual violence through the re-sex-
ing of race.
Securitizing Gendered, Racial–Sexual Boundaries
Resolution 1325 and subsequent resolutions not only rec-
onfigure gender, race, and sexuality within international
security discourses but they make a link between the
inclusion of women and the maintenance of international
peace and security. For example, Resolution 1325 recog-
nizes women’s contribution to ‘‘the maintenance and
promotion of peace and security’’ (Preamble).This link is
more explicit in later resolutions, which position women’s
involvement as necessary for peace and security. For exam-
ple, Resolution 1889 states that, ‘‘the marginalization of
women can delay or undermine the achievement of dura-
ble peace, security and reconciliation’’ (Preamble). In
777
other words, obstacles to women’s participation are not
only problematic in and of themselves but also because
they represent obstacles to peace and security. As dis-
cussed above, UNSCR 1889 implies that the obstacles to
women’s participation are the barbaric masculinities and
irrational patriarchy of the ‘‘brown men’’ in conflict
zones. Through Resolution 1889, it becomes possible to
argue that, since ‘‘brown men’’ in conflict zones are
obstacles to the participation of women in peacebuilding
and the failure of women to participate in peacebuilding
undermines durable peace and security, therefore,
‘‘brown men’’ undermine durable peace and security.
We can see a similar logic in Resolution 1820. Article 1
of this resolution, ‘‘stresses that sexual violence, […] can
significantly exacerbate situations of armed conflict and
may impede the restoration of international peace and security,
[and] affirms in this regard that effective steps to prevent
and respond to such acts of sexual violence can significantly
contribute to the maintenance of international peace and secu-
rity’’ (my emphasis). This is reaffirmed in Resolutions
1888 and 1960. As discussed above, Resolution 1325 and
subsequent resolutions constitute ‘‘brown men’’ in con-
flict zones as perpetrators of sexual violence against
women and girls in conflict zones, while the international
community and international peacekeepers are repre-
sented as the ‘‘protectors’’ of these women and girls. In
other words, since ‘‘brown men’’ are the perpetrators of
sexual violence, which is an obstacle to restoring interna-
tional peace and security, therefore, ‘‘brown men’’ are an
obstacle to international peace and security. Meanwhile,
since the international community protects women and
girls from sexual violence, therefore, interventions by the
international community necessarily maintain interna-
tional peace and security.
Carol Cohn argues that 1325 fails to condemn war and
leaves intact the whole international security architecture
in which the use or threat of violence is perceived as
legitimate (Cohn 2008:198). I argue that 1325 does not
merely leave ‘‘the war system’’ intact, rather it normalizes
war for some actors (those belonging to the ‘‘interna-
tional community,’’ who are enacting ‘‘masculinist’’ pro-
tection) while proscribing it for others (‘‘brown men’’ in
conflict zones, who are considered to be the perpetrators
of violence against ‘‘thewomenandchildren’’ (Enloe
1990)).4
These resolutions, and the discourses of ‘‘Women,
Peace and Security’’ which they have generated, consti-
tute a process of securitization (Buzan, Waever, and de
Wilde 1998), in which women and girls in conflict zones
are constituted as the objects of security, ‘‘brown men’’
as threats to international peace and security, and the
international community as the legitimate agents of secu-
rity. The (re)configurations of gender, race, and sexuality
in 1325 and subsequent resolutions enable a reconstitu-
tion of ‘‘white men saving brown women from brown
men’’ but with a twist (that some ‘‘brown women’’
become auxiliaries to the mission of the ‘‘international
community’’). In the next section, I argue that these con-
figurations of gender, race, and sexuality are mirrored in
4
I do not mean that women in conflict zones are not victims of terrible
violence perpetrated by armed groups there. Rather, I challenge the binary
categories and hierarchies of 1325 and subsequent resolutions, which place all
men in conflict zones as potential perpetrators of violence, while the interna-
tional community is always deemed to protect women in conflict zones. Such
assumptions do not reflect reality and operate to make invisible the violence
of foreign intervention and the abuses carried out by UN-mandated foreign
military ⁄ peacekeeping forces.
778 Reconceptualizing Gender, Reinscribing Racial–Sexual Boundaries
the hegemonic security discourses of the post-9 ⁄ 11
moment and contribute to constituting and normalizing
counterterrorism and counterinsurgency practices.
Gender, Race, Sexuality, and Securitization in the ‘‘War
on Terror’’
In this section, I use the themes of ‘‘re-gendering gen-
der,’’ ‘‘re-racing race,’’ ‘‘re-sexing gender’’ (Eisenstein
2007) and ‘‘re-sexing race’’ to discuss how the gendered,
racialized, and sexualized hierarchies of the ‘‘Women,
Peace and Security’’ discourses are mirrored in the prac-
tices and discourses of international security in the post-
9 ⁄ 11 moment, otherwise known as the so-called ‘‘war on
terror.’’
Re-Sexing Race: ‘‘Dangerous Brown Men’’
At the heart of the ‘‘war on terror’’ is the re-sexing of
race and, through this, the production of the ‘‘dangerous
brown men’’ as a threat to international security (Bhatta-
charyya 2008:4). In particular, Muslim ‘‘brown men’’ have
been characterized as a threat to ‘‘Western civilization’’
and its ‘‘liberal values’’ because they are ‘‘culturally dif-
ferent’’ (Jacoby 2010). In particular, Muslim male sexual-
ity is reified as hostile to gender equality, over-sexed,
controlling of women’s sexuality, as well as homophobic,
and their sexual ‘‘deviancy’’ (from a supposed Western,
liberal norm) constitutes them as a security threat to the
West (Puar 2007; Nusair 2008). Such characterizations
evoke orientalist discourses about the ‘‘barbaric,’’ ‘‘irra-
tional’’ non-Western Other (Said 1978), which is also
implicitly represented in Resolution 1325 and subsequent
resolutions with regard to (‘‘brown’’) men in conflict
zones as perpetrators of sexual violence.
The discourse of the ‘‘war on terror’’ constructs
‘‘brown men’’ as racialized and sexualized threats,
thereby normalizing racialized and sexualized violence
against them. Racial–sexual stereotypes are actually used
by some governments to profile suspected terrorists and
underpin US counterinsurgency strategy (Special Rappor-
teur on the promotion and protection of human rights
and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism
2009:15–16; Centre for Human Rights and Global Justice
2011). The racialized–sexualized construction of Muslim
men has also ‘‘justified, facilitated, and shaped the tor-
ture at Abu Ghraib’’ (Nusair 2008:179), as well as under-
pinning the ‘‘eviction of Muslims’’ from human rights
protections in the post-9 ⁄ 11 moment (Razack 2008).
Re-Sexing Gender: Strategic Assets in the ‘‘War on Terror’’
The rhetoric of the ‘‘war on terror’’ is that it is being
waged against ‘‘dangerous brown men’’ in order to pro-
tect US citizens at home (Young 2003; Shepherd 2006) as
well as to ‘‘liberate women’’ abroad (Abu-Lughod 2002;
Hunt 2002; Cloud 2004; Stabile and Kumar 2005; Hunt
and Rygiel 2007). Increasingly, it is men and women in
Western militaries who are engaged in protecting
‘‘thewomenandchildren’’ (Enloe 1990) at home and
abroad, suggesting a shift in gender relations (Eisenstein
2007:23).
Indeed, more women are being included in Western
militaries under the banner of implementing Resolution
1325. As part of their 1325 National Action Plan, the UK
Ministry of Defense is committed to developing Female
Engagement Teams ‘‘to strengthen engagement with
female civilians in support of UK Battle Groups
tasks ⁄ missions’’ (United Kingdom Government 2010:14).
Female Engagement Teams have existed as part of the
US military since 2003, when they were originally estab-
lished to facilitate the searching of women in Iraq. Also,
under the banner of 1325, NATO aims to increase the
numbers of women in ISAF, viewing them as playing an
important role in ‘‘promot[ing] the mutual trust that is
essential in countering an insurgency’’ by reaching out
to Afghan women (Rasmussen 2010). The rationale
behind the establishment of Female Engagement Teams
(FETs) and the types of roles they are expected to play
mirrors the assumptions made about women’s essential
nature and their suitability for peacekeeping. Yet, their
gender is also represented as a new strategic asset within
counterinsurgency operations, enabling women in the
military to participate in the larger narrative of mascu-
linist protection enacted in the wake of 9 ⁄ 11. They are
part of waging wars on ‘‘terrorists’’ and protecting the
citizens of Western countries. US presidents always thank
the ‘‘brave men and women’’ serving in Iraq and Afghan-
istan ‘‘to protect the freedoms and security we hold
dear’’ (The Telegraph 2011; also, Plaza 2006; The White
House n.d.) (my emphasis).
Moreover, the re-sexing of gender helps to constitute
the racialized hierarchies within the discourse of the
‘‘war on terror.’’ As Laleh Khalili observes, female inter-
rogators in the US army ‘‘essentially help reproduce a
geopolitical dominance in which the ostensible gender
equality in the imperial metropole reinforces racial hier-
archies in the conquered and occupied colonies and
peripheries’’ (Khalili 2011:1484). These racialized hierar-
chies are also reproduced through the positioning of ser-
vicewomen as ‘‘saving’’ the women in Afghanistan and
Iraq, who are victims of the ‘‘dangerous brown men.’’
Like female peacekeepers, FETs are also viewed as a
means to inspire local women to join their country’s mili-
tary or law enforcement agencies (Rasmussen 2010).
When FETs help build schools and clinics, or undertake
other projects for women and girls in rural Afghanistan
or Iraq, they become part of the United State’s ‘‘civilizing
mission’’ toward the Other as well as contributing to win-
ning ‘‘hearts and minds’’ in US counterinsurgency.
Re-Racing Race: Muslim Women as Counterinsurgents
In the post-9 ⁄ 11 moment, Muslim women are being tar-
geted by Western governments as agents of counterinsur-
gency ⁄ counterterrorism. From arguments that gender
inequality fuels ‘‘radicalization’’ and ‘‘terrorism’’ (Caiazza
2001), to assumptions that Muslim women are more
‘‘moderate’’ (Brown 2008) or that they are natural allies
in fighting ‘‘patriarchal Islamist terrorism’’ (Salime
2010), Western decision makers believe that ‘‘women’s
empowerment’’ and participation is key to global security
and stability (Clinton 2010). The US administration pro-
motes ‘‘women’s empowerment’’ in the Middle East
through the Middle East Partnership Initiative, estab-
lished in 2003 to enhance US intervention to eradicate
terrorism (Salime 2010). Sponsored programs include
organizing conferences to discuss the challenges facing
women in the Middle East and ‘‘training’’ women in
political participation (ibid). Not only are we witnessing a
co-optation of feminist goals in the service of the so-
called ‘‘war on terror’’ (Bhattacharyya 2008) but also a
co-optation of women activists from conflict zones as
auxiliaries in the ‘‘war on terror.’’
 Nicola Pratt
There are not only parallels with the language of 1325,
which recognizes the role of women in the prevention
and resolution of conflicts and in peacebuilding, but
there is explicit use of 1325 in the counterinsurgency
strategies of NATO, where reaching out to Afghan
women is a means of obtaining ‘‘fresh information on
Taliban supporters, the positioning of improvised explo-
sive device (IED) tracks and redirected patrols, as well as
better understanding the needs of Afghan women’’
(NATO 2010). Rather than ‘‘empowering women’’ to
define what constitutes peace and security for themselves
and their communities, powerful actors (the US govern-
ment and NATO) are defining peace and security in
their own terms and conflating these with the desires of
Muslim women. This co-optation and conflation is made
possible by the representation of Muslim women as
natural allies with Western governments and militaries
in the fight against ‘‘dangerous brown men,’’ thereby
‘‘re-racing’’ Muslim women within ‘‘war on terror’’
discourses.
Re-gendering Gender: The New Civilizing Mission
Given the historical exclusion of women from the sphere
of international politics and security (as noted earlier in
this article), it would appear that one of the apparent
paradoxes of the ‘‘war on terror’’ is the high degree of
visibility of women within this militarized moment. These
women include former US National Security Advisor and
former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former First
Lady Laura Bush, former Under Secretary of State for
Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes, and current Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton. Zillah Eisenstein calls the women
who served in the Bush administration ‘‘gender decoys’’
for former President Bush’s wars, in that their gender led
us to believe that ‘‘they represent the best of democracy’’
(Eisenstein 2007:100). These women are meant to sym-
bolize Western ‘‘progressive values’’ through their inclu-
sion in the historically masculine sphere of international
politics. Moreover, their inclusion is not predicated on
them acting ‘‘like men.’’ Condoleezza Rice is not afraid
to perform femininity—her love of shoes, her piano play-
ing, her respect for patriarchy (whether George Bush as
the head of the US polity or her father as head of the
family). When Oprah Winfrey asks Dr Rice, ‘‘Do you have
girly–girl moments with your friends?,’’ Condoleezza Rice
answers, ‘‘Oh, sure’’ (Winfrey 2002).
As in the case of 1325, this re-gendering of gender is
enabled through the reinscription of racial–sexual hierar-
chies. In an interview, Condoleezza Rice has described
herself as ‘‘a role model for women in the Middle East’’
(Bush 2010:195). Rice’s words constitute a neo-colonial
feminism that seeks to improve the condition of women
abroad and ‘‘liberate’’ them from the supposed oppres-
sive traditions of Islam. She is meant to represent a uni-
versal norm, the standard to which Middle Eastern
women should aspire. Discussing the colonial encounter,
Meyda Yeĝenoĝlu argues that ‘‘Western women’s recogni-
tion of herself as a subject was possible only outside
national boundaries, in the encounter of a sexually same
yet culturally different other’’ (emphasis in the original)
(Yeĝenoĝlu 1998:107). In other words, Condoleezza Rice
and other ‘‘gender decoys’’ of the US administration
become agential within the political economy of imperial-
ism through the reinscription of racial hierarchies.5 In so
5
Condoleezza Rice is also ‘‘re-raced’’ through this process.
779
doing, they help to normalize the racial–sexual hierar-
chies that underpin counterinsurgency and counterterror-
ism practices.
In the sections above, I have explored how the waging
of the ‘‘war on terror’’ and counterinsurgency strategies
are constituted by and are constitutive of particular gen-
dered, racialized, and sexualized hierarchies, some of
which reproduce colonial tropes of ‘‘white men saving
brown women from brown men,’’ while others (Western
women performing ‘‘masculinist protection’’ and Muslim
women as ‘‘counterinsurgents’’) represent a reconceptu-
alization of gender through a reinscription of racial–sex-
ual boundaries. By using the themes of ‘‘re-gendering
gender,’’ ‘‘re-racing race,’’ ‘‘re-sexing gender’’ (Eisen-
stein 2007) and ‘‘re-sexing race’’ to explore 1325 (and
subsequent resolutions) and the discourses and practices
of the ‘‘war on terror,’’ I have attempted to reveal how
these apparently opposite moments in the post-9 ⁄ 11
moment are linked through the deployment of similar
configurations of gender, race, and sexuality, evoking
continuities and discontinuities with colonialism.
UNSCR 1325, the ‘‘Neo-Liberal Imperium,’’ and Women
in Conflict Zones
In promoting the language of 1325, activists are not only
promoting new notions of gender (that is, women as
peacebuilders and peacekeepers) but they are, implicitly,
also normalizing the same racialized and sexualized hier-
archies that underpin the ‘‘war on terror.’’ Advocates of
1325 have become ‘‘securitizing actors,’’ in that their dis-
courses help to construct the threat of ‘‘dangerous brown
men’’ and (re)affirm the legitimacy of international inter-
vention in order to ‘‘secure’’ women and girls in conflict
zones. This is despite the fact that the United States and
its allies, usually but not always mandated by the ‘‘inter-
national community,’’ have been perpetrating violence
against ‘‘thewomenandchildren’’ as well as against civilian
men in Iraq and Afghanistan at a rate almost as alarming
as that of the ‘‘brown men,’’ as documents on Wikileaks
have demonstrated (The Guardian 2010a,b). Moreover,
the imprisonment and ⁄ or killing of civilian men in the
so-called ‘‘war on terror’’ has negative consequences for
women, who are widowed and ⁄ or left to care for injured
relatives in a context of damaged health-care systems and
limited opportunities for livelihoods.
The gendered, racialized, and sexualized hierarchies
implicit within 1325 and subsequent resolutions, on the
one hand, and underpinning the ‘‘war on terror’’ on the
other hand, may be considered as representing two sides,
consent and coercion, of the same coin of the ‘‘neolib-
eral imperium’’ (Agathangelou and Ling 2009). It is use-
ful to conceptualize the ‘‘neoliberal imperium’’ as
hegemony, in the Gramscian sense, in that its re ⁄ produc-
tion is dependent upon the dialectic of consent and coer-
cion, of material and discursive practices, and of elites
and non-elites (Gramsci 1971:12, 161, 258, 263). The dis-
courses of UNSCR 1325 and the ‘‘Women, Peace and
Security’’ agenda contribute to constructing a consensus
that normalizes the gendered, racialized, and sexualized
hierarchies that are constitutive of the ‘‘war on terror.’’
Moreover, UNSCR 1325 is enabling the construction of
new alliances, between different actors—including,
women’s groups, social movements, NGOs, gender
experts, governments, UN agencies, and even Western
militaries—facilitated by new international development
funding streams. The effect of this Transnational
780 Reconceptualizing Gender, Reinscribing Racial–Sexual Boundaries
Advocacy Network (Keck and Sikkink 1998) is not the
progressive transformation of international politics but
rather it constitutes ‘‘an assemblage’’ that enables ‘‘new
forms of coordination and centralization’’ in the regula-
tion of populations (Duffield and Waddell 2006:43) for
the post-9 ⁄ 11 moment. A rhetorical commitment to ‘‘gen-
der mainstreaming,’’ ‘‘women’s rights,’’ ‘‘women’s partic-
ipation,’’ and ‘‘combating sexual violence’’ marks ‘‘us’’
from ‘‘them’’ in the terrain of global politics, thereby
facilitating the identification of the ‘‘enemy’’ in the so-
called ‘‘war on terror.’’ Indeed, the lines between the
‘‘Women, Peace and Security’’ agenda and the ‘‘war on
terror’’ have become so blurred that 1325 is advocated as
part of improving counterinsurgency and counterterror-
ism strategies (Centre for Human Rights and Global Jus-
tice 2011). Indeed, according to one report, the US
government has already ‘‘explicitly linked UNSCR 1325
to its National Security Strategy (NSS) 2010’’ (Centre for
Human Rights and Global Justice 2011:18).
There is evidence that 1325 is a strategic tool for women
activists in conflict zones, enabling them to speak to a
range of officials and to make demands for inclusion and
recognition (Cohn 2008; Barrow 2009; Farr 2011; McLeod
2011; Owen 2011; Pratt 2011). Moreover, 1325 and subse-
quent resolutions contain within them contradictions and
tensions regarding women’s agency that may, in certain
contexts, be exploited strategically for the benefit of
women activists and notions of gender security (McLeod
2011; Shepherd 2011). Nevertheless, these successes do
not challenge the reinscription of racial–sexual bound-
aries in international security, which play a key role in nor-
malizing the violence of the ‘‘war on terror.’’ Indeed, such
success stories, when they are publicized, contribute to the
legitimacy of 1325, its subsequent resolutions, and associ-
ated discourses and, therefore, contribute to the legiti-
macy and normalization of the gendered, racialized, and
sexualized hierarchies that enable the ‘‘war on terror.’’
Over the long-term, the politicization and instrumen-
talization of gender in the post-9 ⁄ 11 moment, aided by
Resolution 1325, subsequent resolutions, and associated
discourses, reproduces women’s bodies as the terrains of
battle between indigenous men and foreign armies,
thereby helping to create the conditions for a backlash
against women’s agency in conflict zones. The instrumen-
talization of women in counterterrorism and counterin-
surgency strategies renders the control of women’s
bodies by ‘‘insurgents’’ and ‘‘terrorists’’ as integral to
resistance against the foreign invader. This control over
women’s bodies manifests itself through a wide range of
violence against women—from rape to control of
women’s clothing and mobility. Against this backdrop,
measures to implement 1325 in conflict zones, particu-
larly those under foreign occupation, may be viewed by
some indigenous actors as yet another foreign interven-
tion, and their opposition to 1325 represents a reasser-
tion of national sovereignty in resistance to foreign
interference (Kandiyoti 2007; Al-Ali and Pratt 2009b).
Conclusion
This article has attempted to demonstrate that the lan-
guage of 1325 and its associated discourses should be
taken seriously—not only because it risks constraining or
instrumentalizing women’s agency (as argued by Cohn
2008; Shepherd 2008a; Gibbings 2011, among others) but
because it enables the ‘‘international’’ community to
harness women’s agency in the reproduction of global
structures of power constituted through gendered, racial-
ized, and sexualized hierarchies. In turn, these structures
of power underpin the hegemonic discourses and prac-
tices of international security in the post-9 ⁄ 11 period. In
particular, the gendered, racialized, and sexualized
assumptions of 1325 contribute to enabling the waging of
the so-called ‘‘war on terror.’’ In this way, Resolution
1325 is a part of the ‘‘neoliberal imperium,’’ rather than
a challenge to it.
While Resolution 1325 reconceptualizes gender and
breaks down the gendered binaries of the international
security agenda, it does so by reinscribing racial–sexual
hierarchies. The transformative promises of 1325 normal-
ize the racial–sexual hierarchies that underpin dominant
international security discourses and practices in the so-
called ‘‘war on terror.’’ Meanwhile, through funding allo-
cated by national governments and multilateral agencies
to women activists and international NGOs to implement
1325, new constituencies are harnessed in the service of
the neoliberal imperium. In this way, 1325 may be consid-
ered an imperialist feminist project (Orford 2002) rather
than a transnational feminist project from below (Al-Ali
and Pratt 2009a:4–8).
The arguments of this article pose new–old dilemmas
for feminist IR theorizing and transnational feminist
praxis. This article should not be interpreted as merely
presenting another example of the problems of gender
mainstreaming as a project in international governance
(Eveline and Bacchi 2005; Zalewski 2010). Rather it probl-
ematizes the blindness to social relations other than gen-
der in certain strands of feminist theorizing and praxis
and highlights how gender works in and through race and
sexuality. A lack of attention to the relations between gen-
der, race, and sexuality has concrete implications in the
case of Resolution 1325—a project that aims to transform
material realities rather than merely understanding or
explaining them. The implications are the exclusion of
the voices of those women who do not subscribe to the
‘‘1325 agenda,’’ a backlash against women’s agency in
conflict zones and the complicity of some feminisms and
feminists with the pursuit of the so-called ‘‘war on terror.’’
The workings of 1325 in relation to hegemonic practices
and discourses of international security highlight the
importance of understanding the relation between race,
sexuality, and gender in the current juncture. Rather than
taking a break from feminism per se, as Janet Halley sug-
gests (Halley 2006), it is necessary to abandon those
strands of feminist thinking that prioritize gender over
other social relations of power and to embrace feminisms
that see gender as always constituted through and constit-
utive of race, sexuality, class, and other relations of power
in specific historical moments. In this way, feminists may
construct a real counter-hegemonic project to transform
the dominant structures of power that give rise to war,
conflict, insecurity, and injustice.
References
Abu-Lughod, Lila. (2002) Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?
Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others,
American Anthropologist 104 (3): 783–790.
Agathangelou, Anna M., and L. H. M. Ling. (2004) Power, Borders,
Security, Wealth: Lessons of Violence and Desire from September
11. International Studies Quarterly 48: 517–538.
Agathangelou, Anna M., and L. H. M. Ling. (2009) Transforming World
Politics: From Empire to Multiple Worlds. London & New York: Routl-
edge.
 Nicola Pratt
Ahmed, Leila. (1992) Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a
Modern Debate. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Al-Ali, Nadje, and Nicola Pratt. (2009a) Introduction. In Women and
War in the Middle East: Transnational Perspectives, edited by Nadje
Al-Ali and Nicola Pratt. London: Zed.
Al-Ali, Nadje, and Nicola Pratt. (2009b) What Kind of Liberation?
Women and the Occupation of Iraq. Berkeley, CA: University of Califor-
nia Press.
Al-Ali, Nadje, and Nicola Pratt. (2011) Conspiracy of Near Silence:
Violence against Iraqi Women. Middle East Report 41 (1): 34–37, 48.
Alexander, M. Jacqui, and Chandra Talpade Mohanty. (1997)
Introduction: Genealogies, Legacies, Movements. In Feminist
Genealogies, Colonial Legacies, Democratic Futures, edited by M. Jacqui
Alexander and Chandra Talpade Mohanty. New York and London:
Routledge.
Alison, Miranda. (2007) Wartime Sexual Violence: Women’s Human
Rights and Questions of Masculinity. Review of International Studies
33 (1): 75–90.
Amos, Valerie, and Pratibha Parmar. (1984) Challenging Imperial
Feminism. Feminist Review 17: 3–19.
Anderlini, Sanam Naraghi. (2007) Women Building Peace: What They Do,
Why It Matters. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Anderlini, Sanam Naraghi, and John Tirman. (2010) What the Women
Say: Participation and UNSCR 1325. Cambridge, MA: MIT Centre for
International Studies.
Anderson, Letitia. (2010) Politics by Other Means: When Does Sexual
Violence Threaten International Peace and Security? International
Peacekeeping 17 (2): 244–260.
Aroussi, Sahla. (2011) ‘Women, Peace and Security:’ Addresing
Accountability for Wartime Sexual Violence. International Feminist
Journal of Politics 13 (4): 576–593.
Barrow, Amy. (2009) ‘[It’s] Like a Rubber Band.’ Assessing UNSCR
1325 as a Gender Mainstreaming Process. International Journal of
Law in Context 5 (1): 51–68.
Bhattacharyya, Gargi. (2008) Dangerous Brown Men: Exploiting Sex, Vio-
lence and Feminism in the War on Terror. London: Zed.
Booth, Ken. (2005) Critical Explorations. In Critical Security Studies and
World Politics, edited by Ken Booth. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Brown, Katherine. (2008) The Promise and Perils of Women’s Partici-
pation in UK Mosques: The Impact of Securitisation Agendas on
Identity, Gender and Community. British Journal of Politics and Inter-
national Relations 10 (3): 472–491.
Brownmiller, Susan. (1975) Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Bunch, Charlotte, Peggy Antrobus, Samantha Frost, and Niamh
Reilly. (2001) International Networking for Women’s Human
Rights. In Global Citizen Action, edited by Michael Edwards and John
Gaventa. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Bush, Barbara. (2010) The Barbara Bush Interview—Condoleezza Rice.
POP Magazine (Spring ⁄ Summer): 194–195.
Buzan, Barry, Ole Waever, and Jaap de Wilde. (1998) Security: A New
Framework for Analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Caiazza, Amy. (2001) Why Gender Matters in Understanding September
11: Women, Militarism, and Violence. Institute for Women’s Policy
Research Briefing Paper, 1–6.
Centre for Human Rights and Global Justice. (2011) A Decade Lost:
Locating Gender in US Counter-Terrorism. New York: NYU School of
Law.
Chowdhry, Geeta. (1995) Engendering Development? Women in
Development (WID) in International Development Regimes. In
Feminism, Postmodernism, Development, edited by Jane L. Parpart and
Marianne H. Marchand. London & New York: Routledge.
Chowdhry, Geeta, and Sheila Nair, Eds. (2002) Power, Postcolonialism
and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender and Class. London:
Routledge.
Clinton, Hillary Rodham. (October 26, 2010) Remarks at the 10th
Anniversary of UNSCR 1325 on Women, Peace and Security. Avail-
able at http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/2010/150010.htm.
(Accessed August 18, 2011.)
Cloud, Dana L. (2004) ‘‘To Veil the Threat of Terror’’: Afghan Women
and the ‘‘Clash of Civilisations’’ in the Imagery of the U.S. War on
Terrorism. Quarterly Journal of Speech 90 (3): 285–306.
Cockburn, Cynthia. (2007) From Where We Stand: War, Women’s Activism
and Feminist Analysis. London: Zed Books.
781
Cohn, Carol. (2008) Mainstreaming Gender in UN Security Policy: A
Path to Political Transformation? In In Global Governance: Feminist
Perspectives, edited by Shirin Rai and Georgina Waylen. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Cohn, Carol, Helen Kinsella, and Sheri Gibbings. (2004) Women,
Peace and Security, Resolution 1325. International Feminist Journal of
Politics 6 (1): 130–140.
Confortini, Catia Cecilia. (2011) Doing Feminist Peace. International
Feminist Journal of Politics 13 (3): 349–370.
Cox, Robert W. (1981) Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond
International Relations Theory. Millennium: Journal of International
Studies 10 (2): 126–155.
Duffield, Mark, and Nicholas Waddell. (2006) Securing Humans in
a Dangerous World. International Politics 43: 1–23.
Eisenstein, Zillah. (2004) Against Empire: Feminisms, Racism and the West.
New York: Zed.
Eisenstein, Zillah. (2007) Sexual Decoys: Gender, Race and War in Imperial
Democracy. London: Zed.
El-Saadawi, Nawal. (1980) The Hidden Face of Eve. London: Zed.
Enloe, Cynthia. (1990) Womenandchildren: Making Feminist Sense of
the Persian Gulf War, The Village Voice, 25 September.
Enloe, Cynthia. (2001) Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist
Sense of International Politics. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Eveline, Joan, and Carol Bacchi. (2005) What Are We Mainstreaming
When We Mainstream Gender? International Feminist Journal of Poli-
tics 7 (4): 496–512.
Fanon, Frantz. (1967) Black Skin, White Masks. New York: Grove Press.
Farr, Vanessa. (2011) UNSCR 1325 and Women’s Peace Activism in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory. International Feminist Journal of Poli-
tics 13 (4): 539–556.
Farr, Vanessa, Henri Myrttinen, and Albrecht Schnabel, Eds.
(2009) Sexed Pistols: The Gendered Impacts of Small Arms and Light
Weapons. Tokyo, New York and Paris: United Nations University
Press.
Gender Action on Peace and Security (GAPS). (2011) UNSCR 1325:
The Participation Promise. London: Gender Action on Peace and
Security (GAPS).
Gibbings, Sheri. (2004) Governing Women, Governing Security: Gov-
ernmentality, Gender Mainstreaming and Women’s Activism at the
UN. Unpublished Masters’ Dissertation, Department of Social
Anthropology, York University.
Gibbings, Sheri. (2011) No Angry Women at the United Nations: Politi-
cal Dreams and the Cultural Politics of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 1325. International Feminist Journal of Politics
13 (4): 522–538.
Giles, Wenona, andJennifer Hyndman, Eds. (2004) Sites of Violence:
Gender and Conflict Zones. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Gramsci, Antonio. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London:
Lawrence and Wishart.
Halley, Janet. (2006) Split Decisions: How and Why to Take a Break from
Feminism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Harrington, Jane. (2011) Resolution 1325 and Post-Cold War Feminist
Politics. International Feminist Journal of Politics 13 (4): 557–575.
Heyzer, Noeleen. (2003) Foreword. Conflict Trends (Special Issue on
Women, Peace and Security) 3: 3–4.
Hill, Felicity, Carol Cohn, and Cynthia Enloe. (2004) UN Security
Council Resolution 1325 Three Years On: Gender, Security and
Organizational Change. Roundtable discussion at the Boston
Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights, Boston, MA,
January 20.
Hunt, Krista. (2002) The Strategic Co-Optation of Women’s Rights.
International Feminist Journal of Politics 4 (1): 116–121.
Hunt, Swanee, and Cristina Posa. (2001) Women Waging Peace:
Inclusive Security. Foreign Policy (May ⁄ June): 38–47.
Hunt, Krista, andKim Rygiel, Eds. (2007) (En)Gendering the War on
Terror: War Stories and Camouflaged Politics. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Jacoby, Tim. (2010) The ‘‘Muslim Menace’’, Violence and the De-Politi-
cising Elements of the New Culturalism. Journal of Muslim Minority
Affairs 30 (2): 167–181.
Jennings, Kathleen. (2011) Women’s Participation in UN Peacekeeping
Operations: Agents of Change or Stranded Symbols? Oslo: Norwegian
Peacebuilding Resource Centre.
782 Reconceptualizing Gender, Reinscribing Racial–Sexual Boundaries
Kabbani, Rana. (1986) Imperial Fictions: Europe’s Myths of Orient. Bloom-
ington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Kandiyoti, Deniz. (2007) Between the Hammer and the Anvil: Post-
Conflict Reconstruction, Islam and Women’s Rights. Third World
Quarterly 28 (3): 503–517.
Keck, Margaret, and Kathryn Sikkink. (1998) Activists Beyond Borders:
Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univer-
sity Press.
Kelly, Liz. (1987) The Continuum of Sexual Violence. In Women, Vio-
lence and Social Control, edited by Jalner Hanmer and Mary Maynard.
Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press International, Inc.
Khalili, Laleh. (2011) Gendered Practices of Counterinsurgency. Review
of International Studies 37 (4): 1471–1491.
McClintock, Anne. (1995) Imperial Leather: Race, Gender and Sexuality in
the Colonial Contest. New York and London: Routledge.
McDonald, Matt. (2002) Human Security and the Construction of
Security. Global Society 16 (3): 277–295.
McLeod, Laura. (2011) Configurations of Post-Conflict: Impacts of
Representations of Conflict and Post-Conflict Upon the (Political)
Translations of Gender Security within UNSCR 1325. International
Feminist Journal of Politics 13 (4): 594–611.
Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. (1988) Under Western Eyes: Feminist
Scholarship and Colonial Discourses. Feminist Review 30 (Autumn):
65–88.
Nagel, Joane. (2003) Race, Ethnicity and Sexuality: Intimate Intersection, For-
bidden Frontiers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
NATO. (October 27, 2010) NATO’s Implementation of UNSCR 1325.
Available at http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_56984.
htm?selectedLocale=en. (Accessed April 4, 2011.)
Nusair, Isis. (2008) Gendered, Racialized, and Sexualized Torture at
Abu Ghraib. In Feminism and War: Confronting US Imperialism, edited
by Robin L. Riley, Chandra T. Mohanty and Minnie Bruce Pratt.
London: Zed.
Orford, Anne. (2002) Feminism, Imperialism and the Mission of Inter-
national Law. Nordic Journal of International Law 71: 275–296.
Orford, Anne. (2003) Reading Humanitarian Intervention: Human Rights
and the Use of Force in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Owen, Margaret. (2011) Widowhood Issues in the Context of UNSCR
1325. International Feminist Journal of Politics 13 (4): 616–622.
Peterson, V. Spike. (1992) Gendered States: Feminist (Re)Visions of Interna-
tional Relations Theory. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Peterson, V. Spike, and Anne S. Runyan. (1999) Global Gender Issues.
Boulder: Westview Press.
Pettman, Jan Jindy. (2005) Questions of Identity: Australia and Asia. In
Critical Security Studies and World Politics, edited by Ken Booth. Boul-
der: Lynne Rienner.
Plaza, Iron Mike. (July 4, 2006) President Bush Thanks Military on
Independence Day at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Available at
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/
07/20060704.html. (Accessed March 29, 2012.)
Porter, Elisabeth. (October 18, 2005) Women and Security: ‘You Can-
not Dance If You Cannot Stand’. OpenDemocracy. Available at
http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-resolution_1325/dan-
ce_2937.jsp. (Accessed June 15, 2012.)
Pratt, Nicola. (2011) Iraqi Women and UNSCR 1325: An Interview
with Sundus Abbas, Director of the Iraqi Women’s Leadership Insti-
tute, Baghdad. International Feminist Journal of Politics 13 (4): 612–
615.
Pratt, Nicola, and Sophie Richter-Devroe. (2011) Introduction: Crit-
ically Examining UNSCR 1325 on Women, Peace and Security. Spe-
cial Issue of International Feminist Journal of Politics 13 (4): 489–503.
Puar, Jasbir K. (2007) Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer
Times. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Rasmussen, Anders Fogh. (October 29, 2010) Speech to the Confer-
ence on the Role of Women in Global Security, Copenhagen. Avail-
able at http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-79B6387B-58261976/
natolive/opinions_67602.htm?selectedLocale=en. (Accessed March
29, 2012.)
Razack, Sherene H. (2004) Dark Threats and White Knights: The Somalia
Affair, Peacekeeping and the New Imperialism. Toronto, ON: University
of Toronto Press.
Razack, Sherene H. (2008) Casting Out: The Eviction of Muslims from Wes-
tern Law and Politics. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Said, Edward. (1978) Orientalism. London: Penguin Books.
Salime, Zakia. (2010) Securing the Market, Pacifying Civil Society,
Empowering Women: The Middle East Partnership Initiative. Socio-
logical Forum 25 (4): 725–745.
Shalhoub-Kevorkian, Nadera. (2009) Militarization and Violence against
Women in Conflict Zones in the Middle East: A Palestinian Case Study.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shepherd, Laura. (2006) Veiled References. International Feminist Journal
of Politics 8 (1): 1–23.
Shepherd, Laura J. (2008a) Gender, Violence and Security. London: Zed.
Shepherd, Laura J. (2008b) Power and Authority in the Production of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325. International Stud-
ies Quarterly 52: 383–404.
Shepherd, Laura. (2011) Sex, Security and Superhero(in)es: From 1325
to 1820 and Beyond. International Feminist Journal of Politics 13 (4):
504–521.
Simic, Olivera. (2010) Does the Presence of Women Really Matter?
Towards Combating Male Sexual Violence in Peacekeeping Opera-
tions. International Peacekeeping 17 (2): 188–199.
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human
rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terror-
ism. (2009) Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Free-
doms While Countering Terrorism. Available at http://
www.chrgj.org/projects/docs/A64211.pdf. (Accessed March 29,
2012.)
Spivak, Gayatri. (1988) Can the Subaltern Speak?. In Marxism and the
Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Gross-
berg. London: Macmillan.
Stabile, Carol A., and Deepa Kumar. (2005) Unveiling Imperialism:
Media, Gender and the War on Afghanistan. Media, Culture & Soci-
ety 27 (5): 765–782.
The Guardian. (2010a) Iraq: The War Logs. Available at http://
www.guardian.co.uk/world/iraq-war-logs. (Accessed August 18,
2011.)
The Guardian. (2010b) Afghanistan: The War Logs. Available at http://
www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-war-logs. (Accessed August 18,
2011.)
The Telegraph. (December 24, 2011) Obamas Thank Troops in
Christmas Message. Available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
worldnews/barackobama/8977136/Obamas-thank-troops-in-Christmas-
message.html. (Accessed March 29, 2012.)
The White House. (n.d.) Foreign Policy. Available at http://www.white-
house.gov/issues/foreign-policy. (Accessed March 29, 2012.)
Tickner, J. Ann. (1992) Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspec-
tives on Achieving Global Security. New York: Columbia University
Press.
UN News Centre. (November 20, 2009) India’s All-Female Un Police
Unit Serves as Inspiration for Liberian Women. Available at http://
www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=33027&Cr=liberia&Cr1.
(Accessed March 19, 2012.)
United Kingdom Government. (2010) UK Government National Action
Plan on UNSCR 1325 Women, Peace and Security. London: HMG.
United Nations Security Council. (2000) Resolution 1325. Adopted
by the Security Council at its 4213th meeting on October 31. Avail-
able at http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N00/
720/18/PDF/N0072018.pdf?OpenElement. (Accessed September
15, 2007.)
United Nations Security Council. (2008) Resolution 1820. Adopted
by the Security Council at its 5916th meeting on June 19.
Available at http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
N08/391/44/PDF/N0839144.pdf?OpenElement. (Accessed March
29, 2012.)
United Nations Security Council. (2009a) Resolution 1888. Adopted
by the Security Council at its 6195th meeting on September 30.
Available at http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
N09/534/46/PDF/N0953446.pdf?OpenElement. (Accessed March
29, 2012.)
United Nations Security Council. (2009b) Resolution 1889. Adopted
by the Security Council at its 6196th meeting on October 5. Avail-
able at http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/
542/55/PDF/N0954255.pdf?OpenElement. (Accessed on March 29,
2012.)
United Nations Security Council. (2010) Resolution 1960. Adopted
by the Security Council at its 6453rd meeting on December 16.
 Nicola Pratt
Available at http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
N10/698/34/PDF/N1069834.pdf?OpenElement. (Accessed on
March 29, 2012.)
Vayrynen, Tarja. (2004) Gender and UN Peace Operations: The Con-
fines of Modernity. International Peacekeeping 11 (1): 125–142.
Whitworth, Sandra. (2004) Men, Militarism and UN Peacekeeping: A Gen-
dered Analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Winfrey, Oprah. (February, 2002) Oprah Talks to Condoleezza Rice. O,
Oprah Magazine. Available at http://www.oprah.com/magazine/Op-
rah-Interviews-Condoleezza-Rice. (Accessed March 29, 2012.)
783
Yeĝenoĝlu, Meyda. (1998) Colonial Fantasies. Towards a Feminist Reading
of Orientalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Young, Iris Marion. (2003) The Logic of Masculinist Protection: Reflec-
tions on the Current Security State. Signs: Journal of Women in Cul-
ture and Society 29 (1): 1–25.
Yuval-Davis, Nira. (1997) Gender and Nation. London: Sage.
Zalewski, Marysia. (2010) ‘I Don’t Even Know What Gender Is’: A
Discussion of the Connections between Gender, Gender Mainstrea-
ming and Feminist Theory. Review of International Studies 36 (1):
3–27.