“男人的世界”:解释战斗中对女性态度的矛盾本质

Q1 Arts and Humanities
B. Greener
{"title":"“男人的世界”:解释战斗中对女性态度的矛盾本质","authors":"B. Greener","doi":"10.1080/23337486.2021.1985756","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Enduring resistance to women joining combat roles, ostensibly to protect those women, is paradoxical when juxtaposed against the everyday dangers that women face. This paper draws attention to such sites of contradiction, summarizing the literature that investigates these before bringing Kate Manne’s ‘logic of misogyny’ into the conversation. Manne’s characterization of misogyny as a ‘hostile forcefield’, and her assertion that women are essentialised as givers, not takers, provide additional traction for understanding why women in combat roles are subject to an array of impossible inconsistencies, whilst the notion of ‘regendering’ provides some promise for beginning to unravel these contradictions.","PeriodicalId":37527,"journal":{"name":"Critical Military Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Man(ne)’s world’: explaining the paradoxical nature of attitudes towards women in combat\",\"authors\":\"B. Greener\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23337486.2021.1985756\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Enduring resistance to women joining combat roles, ostensibly to protect those women, is paradoxical when juxtaposed against the everyday dangers that women face. This paper draws attention to such sites of contradiction, summarizing the literature that investigates these before bringing Kate Manne’s ‘logic of misogyny’ into the conversation. Manne’s characterization of misogyny as a ‘hostile forcefield’, and her assertion that women are essentialised as givers, not takers, provide additional traction for understanding why women in combat roles are subject to an array of impossible inconsistencies, whilst the notion of ‘regendering’ provides some promise for beginning to unravel these contradictions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37527,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Military Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Military Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23337486.2021.1985756\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Military Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23337486.2021.1985756","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:表面上是为了保护女性,对女性加入战斗角色的持久抵制,与女性每天面临的危险相比,是自相矛盾的。在将凯特·曼恩的“厌女逻辑”引入对话之前,本文对这些矛盾点进行了关注,并对调查这些矛盾点的文献进行了总结。曼恩将厌女症描述为一个“敌对的力量场”,并断言女性被本质化为给予者,而不是索取者,这为理解为什么处于战斗角色的女性会遇到一系列不可能的矛盾提供了额外的动力,而“再生”的概念为开始解开这些矛盾提供了一些希望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
‘Man(ne)’s world’: explaining the paradoxical nature of attitudes towards women in combat
ABSTRACT Enduring resistance to women joining combat roles, ostensibly to protect those women, is paradoxical when juxtaposed against the everyday dangers that women face. This paper draws attention to such sites of contradiction, summarizing the literature that investigates these before bringing Kate Manne’s ‘logic of misogyny’ into the conversation. Manne’s characterization of misogyny as a ‘hostile forcefield’, and her assertion that women are essentialised as givers, not takers, provide additional traction for understanding why women in combat roles are subject to an array of impossible inconsistencies, whilst the notion of ‘regendering’ provides some promise for beginning to unravel these contradictions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Military Studies
Critical Military Studies Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Critical Military Studies provides a rigorous, innovative platform for interdisciplinary debate on the operation of military power. It encourages the interrogation and destabilization of often taken-for-granted categories related to the military, militarism and militarization. It especially welcomes original thinking on contradictions and tensions central to the ways in which military institutions and military power work, how such tensions are reproduced within different societies and geopolitical arenas, and within and beyond academic discourse. Contributions on experiences of militarization among groups and individuals, and in hitherto underexplored, perhaps even seemingly ‘non-military’ settings are also encouraged. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and, if found suitable for further consideration, to double-blind peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees. The Journal also includes a non-peer reviewed section, Encounters, showcasing multidisciplinary forms of critique such as film and photography, and engaging with policy debates and activism.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信