This article suggests that although a distinction between ‘International Relations’ and ‘Gender and International Relations’ may be untenable, there is a continued need for feminist analysis of international politics. Yet to imagine gendered scholarship on international politics as more than IR's ‘other’ remains a challenge—though resisted as the articles in this issue demonstrate. This resistance is reassuring, especially given that ambitions to imagine (G)IR as ‘one’ have been unsettled by a growing schism between feminist scholarship and gender analyses, particularly in ‘neo-feminist’ work that has gained prominence of late within IR. This article explores feminist encounters with(in) IR, firstly by considering the ways in which the ‘doing’ of feminism is simultaneously the ‘undoing’ of IR, and secondly by considering the growing trend to alleviate gendered analyses of their feminist commitments.
AckerlyB.TrueJ. (2006) ‘Studying the struggles and wishes of the age: Feminist theoretical methodology and feminist theoretical methods’, in AckerlyB.SternM.TrueJ. (eds), Feminist Methodologies for International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 241–260.
2.
AckerlyB.SternM.TrueJ. (eds) (2006) Feminist Methodologies For International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
3.
AhmedS. (2004) The Cultural Politics of Emotion (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).
4.
AlsopR.FitzsimonsA.LennonK. (2005) Theorizing Gender: An Introduction (Oxford: Polity Press).
5.
AnandD. (2007) ‘Anxious sexualities: Masculinity, nationalism and violence’, The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 9:2, 257–269.
6.
BadinterE. (2006) Dead End Feminism (Oxford: Polity Press).
7.
BronfenE.KavkaM. (2001) Feminist Consequences: Theory for the New Century (New York: Columbia University Press).
8.
BrownW. (1995) States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
9.
BrownW. (2005) Edgework: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
10.
BrownC. (2006) ‘IR theory in Britain—the new black?’, Review of International Studies, 32:4, 677–687.
CaprioliM. (2004) ‘Feminist IR theory and quantitative methodology: A critical analysis’, International Studies Review, 6:2, 253–269.
15.
CarpenterR. C. (2002) ‘Gender theory in world politics: Contributions of a nonfeminist standpoint?’, International Studies Review, 4:3, 153–166.
16.
CarverT.CochranM.SquiresJ. (1998) ‘Gendering Jones’, Review of International Studies, 24:2, 283–298.
17.
CarverT.ZalewskiM.KinsellaH.CarpenterR. C. (2003) ‘The Forum—Gender and International Relations’, International Studies Review, 5:2, 287–301.
18.
CheslerP. (2005) The Death of Feminism (New York: Palgrave MacMillan).
19.
CochranM. (1999) ‘Talking with feminists about what we can know in IR’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 12:2, 46–56.
20.
ColemanL. (2007) ‘The gendered violence of development: Imaginative geographies of exclusion in the imposition of neo-liberal capitalism’, The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 9:2, 204–219.
21.
ConnellR. (2002) Gender (Oxford: Polity Press).
22.
EnloeC. (2004) ‘“Gender” is not enough: The need for a feminist consciousness’, International Affairs, 80:1, 95–97.
23.
EschleC.MaiguashcaB. (2007) ‘Rethinking resistance: Feminist “anti-globalisation” activism and critical theorising in IR’, The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 9:2, 284–301.
24.
FederE.ZakinE. (1997) ‘Flirting with the truth’, in FederE.RawlinsonM.ZakinE. (eds), Derrida and Feminism (New York and London: Routledge), 21–52.
25.
GriffinP. (2007) ‘Sexing the economy in a neo-liberal world order: Neo-liberal discourse, the World Bank and the (re)production of heteronormative heterosexuality’, The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 9:2, 220–238.
26.
HalleyJ. (2006) Split Decisions: How and Why to Take a Break from Feminism (Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press).
27.
HawkesworthM. (2004) ‘The semiotics of premature burial: Feminism in a postfeminist age’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 29:4, 961–986.
HirschM.KellerE. F. (1991) Conflicts in Feminism (London: Routledge).
30.
JaggarA. (1983) Feminist Politics and Human Nature (Sussex: The Harvester Press).
31.
JonesA. (1996) ‘“Does gender make the world go round?” Feminist critiques of International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 22:4, 405–429.
32.
JonesA. (1998) ‘Engendering debate’, Review of International Studies, 24:2, 299–303.
33.
JonesA. (2004) Gendercide and Genocide (Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt Press).
34.
KinsellaH. (2003) ‘For a careful reading: The conservatism of gender constructivism’, International Studies Review, 5:2, 294–297.
35.
LindnerE. G. (2004) ‘Gendercide and humiliation in honor and human-rights societies’, in JonesA. (ed.), Gendercide and Genocide (Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt Press), 39–61.
LonginoH. E. (2001) ‘Can there be a feminist science?’, in WyerM.BarbercheckM.GiesmanD.Orun OzturkH.WayneM. (eds), Women, Science and Technology (London: Routledge), 216–222.
38.
Mascia-LeesF. E.SharpeP. (2000) Taking a Stand in a Postfeminist World: Toward an Engaged Cultural Criticism (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press).
39.
Moller-OkinS. (1989) Justice, Gender and the Family (New York: Basic Books).
40.
PhillipsA. (2000) ‘Equality, pluralism, universality: Current concerns in normative theory’, The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 2:2, 237–255.
41.
ShepherdL. (2007) ‘“Victims, Perpetrators and Actors” revisited: Exploring the potential for a feminist reconceptualisation of (international) security and (gender) violence’, The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 9:2, 239–256.
42.
SmithS. (2000) ‘The discipline of International Relations: Still an American social science?’, The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 2:3, 374–402.
43.
SteansJ. (2003) ‘Engaging from the margins: Feminist encounters with the “mainstream” of International Relations’, The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 5:3, 428–454.
44.
TannenD. (1990) You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation (New York: William Morrow).
45.
ThomasC. (2002) ‘Re-enfleshing the bright boys; Or, how male bodies matter to feminist theory’, in Kegan-GardinerJ. (ed.), Masculinity Studies and Feminist Theory: New Directions (London: Routledge), 60–89.
46.
TicknerJ. A. (1992) Gender in International Relations (New York: Columbia University Press).
47.
TicknerJ. A. (1997) ‘You just don't understand: Troubled engagements between feminists and IR theorists’, International Studies Quarterly, 41:4, 611–632.
48.
WaylenG. (2006) ‘You still don't understand: Why troubled engagements continue between feminists and (critical) IPE’, Review of International Studies, 32:1, 145–164.
49.
WeaverO. (1998) ‘The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments in International Relations’, International Organization, 52:4, 687–727.
50.
WeldonL. S. (2006) ‘Inclusion and understanding: A collective methodology for feminist International Relations’, in AckerlyB.SternM.TrueJ. (eds), Feminist Methodologies for International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 62–87.
51.
WestonK. (2002) Gender in Real Time: Power and Transcience in a Visual Age (London and New York: Routledge).
52.
WestonK. (2005) Unpublished discussant comments presented at a workshop on Security at the International Studies Annual Convention, Honolulu, Hawaii.
53.
WiegmanR. (2001) ‘Feminism, institutionalism, and the idiom of failure’, Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 11:3, 107–136.
54.
WiegmanR. (2006) ‘Heteronormativity and the desire for gender’, Feminist Theory, 7:1, 89–104.
55.
ZalewskiM. (2006) ‘Distracted reflections on the production, narration, and refusal of feminist knowledge in International Relations’, in AckerlyB.SternM.TrueJ. (eds), Feminist Methodologies for International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 42–61.
