Mary Caprioli

The Heart of the Matter: The Security of Women and the Security of States

Does the security of women influence the security and behavior of states? Existing evidence linking the situation of women to state-level variables such as economic prosperity and growth, health, and corruption is fairly conclusive. Questions remain, however, concerning the degree to which state security and state security-related behavior is linked to the security of women. The women and peace thesis draws upon evolutionary biology/psychology for ultimate causes of this linkage, and sociological theories of social diffusion and psychological theories of social learning for more proximate causal mechanisms. Together, a new data resourcethe WomanStats Databaseand conventional methodology find a robust, positive relationship between the physical security of women and three measures of state security and peacefulness. In addition, a comparison of this proposition to alternative explanations involving level of democracy, level of economic development, and civilizational identity shows that the physical security of women is a better predictor of state security and peacefulness. Although these results are preliminary, it is still possible to conclude that the security of women must not be overlooked in the study of state security, especially given that the research questions to be raised and the policy initiatives to be considered in the promotion of security will differ markedly if the security of women is seriously considered as a significant influence on state security.

Gender Equality and State Aggression: The Impact of Domestic Gender Equality on State First Use of Force

I examine the role of domestic gender equality in predicting whether or not a state is more aggressive in international disputes. This research adds to a growing body of feminist research in international relations, which demonstrates that states with higher levels of gender equality exhibit lower levels of violence during international disputes and during international crises. Many scholars have argued that a domestic environment of inequality and violence results in a greater likelihood of state use of violence internationally. This argument is most fully developed within feminist literature; however, research in the field of ethno-nationalism has also highlighted the negative impact of domestic discrimination and violence on state behavior at the international level. Using the MID data set and new data on first use of force, I test, using logistic regression, whether states with higher levels of gender equality are less likely to be aggressive when involved in international disputes, controlling for other possible causes of state use of force. Beyond this projects contribution to the conflict literature, this research expands feminist theory by further incorporating it into traditional international relations theory to deepen our understanding of the impact of domestic gender equality on state behavior internationally.

Ethnic Discrimination and Interstate Violence: Testing the International Impact of Domestic Behavior

It has been shown in the work of Ted Gurr and others that ethnic discrimination can lead to ethno-political rebellion, and that rebellion often leads to interstate conflict. The authors seek to discover whether rebellion is the only meaningful link between ethnic discrimination and international violence. Many scholars have argued that a domestic environment of inequality and violence results in a greater likelihood of state use of violence internationally. This argument is most fully developed within feminist literature; however, research in the area of ethno-political conflict has also highlighted the negative impact of domestic discrimination on state behavior at the international level. The analysis builds upon the literature linking domestic gender inequality and state aggression to other inequalities created and/or sustained by the state. Using the Minorities at Risk (MAR) and Militarized Interstate Disputes (MID) datasets, the authors test whether states characterized by higher levels of discrimination against ethnic minorities are more likely to exhibit higher levels of hostility or to use force first when involved in international disputes. Group-level data in MAR are used to create a set of state-level variables measuring the extent of formal and informal discrimination against minority groups. The authors then test whether states with higher levels of discrimination against minority groups are more likely to rely on force when involved in an international dispute, controlling for other possible causes of state use of force. Ultimately, the authors confirm their hypotheses that states characterized by domestic inequality with regard to ethnic minorities are more likely to exhibit higher levels of hostility and to use force first when involved in an interstate conflict.

Democracy and Human Rights Versus Women’s Security: A Contradiction?

Notions of security are often presumed to be gender neutral, with women and men assumed to share the same political freedoms and human rights. However, assumptions of gender neutrality often mask bias. Do democracy and human rights positively relate to women’s security? If a gender bias is inherent in these norms, then any conclusions drawn from studies using such measures will be strictlylimited, and policy prescriptions designed to ensure security must move beyond policies focusing on promoting democracy and human rights as currently conceptualized. Using a cross-national, longitudinal analysis, this article systematically examines whether democracy and human rights reflect women’s security, and concludes thatneither democracy nor human rights as commonly measured ensure women’s security.

The WomanStats Project Database: Advancing an Empirical Research Agenda

This article describes the WomanStats Project Database — a multidisciplinary creation of a central repository for cross-national data and information on women available for use by academics, policy-makers, journalists, and all others. WomanStats is freely accessible online, thus facilitating worldwide scholarship on issues with gendered aspects. WomanStats contains over 260 variables for 174 countries and their attendant subnational divisions (where such information is available) and currently contains over 68,000 individual data points. WomanStats provides nuanced data on the situation and status of women internationally and in so doing facilitates the current trend to disaggregate analyses. This article introduces the dataset, which is now publicly available, describes its creation, discusses its utility, and uses measures of association and mapping to draw attention to theoretically interesting patterns concerning the various dimensions of women’s inequality that are worthy of further exploration. Two of nine variables clusters are introduced — women’s physical security and son preference/sex ratio. The authors confirm the multidimensionality of women’s status and show that the impact of democracy and state wealth vary based on the type of violence against women. Overall, the authors find a high level of violence against women worldwide.

Multiple pathways to understanding: A response to Bilgin

article ‘Democracy and Human Rights Versus Women’s Security: A Contradiction?’ has added fuel to the ongoing academic debate concerning women’s security.1 However, although Pinar Bilgin raises important issues concerning women’s security in her rejoinder, her criticisms are not particularly applicable to my original article. Before responding to some of Bilgin’s criticisms, though, I would like to make two general comments. First, I do not fundamentally disagree with Bilgin in that the issue of women’s security is quite complex. Second, Bilgin’s rejoinder, despite protestations to the contrary, falls under the general rubric of ‘This is not the paper I would have written.’ Bilgin focuses on two points: my supposed failure to ‘problematize the links . . . between human security . . . and democracy and human rights’ (p. 499) and my ‘incorrectly placing the problem purely in the domestic sphere’ (p. 499). However, her criticisms are misplaced, given the purpose of the original article, as discussed below. Indeed, our difference is one of approach and intent rather than substance.