Abstract
AbstractDifferences between women and men in perceptions of security threats are firmly established in public opinion research, with the ‘male warrior’ and the ‘worried woman’ two well-documented stereotypes. Yet, we argue in this article, the differences are not as well understood as such labels, or the search for explanations, imply. One reason for this is the lack of dialogue between public opinion research and feminist security studies. In bringing the two fields into conversation by analysing mixed methods research data gathered in Britain, we suggest that while the extent of the gender gap in opinions of security is overstated, the gaps that do exist are more complex than previously allowed: men and women define ‘security’ in slightly different ways; women tend to identify more security threats than men not necessarily because theyfeelmore threatened but due to a greater capacity to consider security from perspectives beyond their own; women are more confident about the government's ability to deal with security threats in the future but not simply because of greater faith in government than men. This complexity implies a need to revisit assumptions, methods, and analytical approaches in order to develop the field of gender and security further.
Highlights
Public opinion research has found that gender differences on security issues of war, peace, and the use of military force are ‘a pattern found throughout the Western world’.1 This research suggests that, while women perceive more risks and threats to security men,2 ‘the largest and most consistent policy gender gap in public opinion polling’ is that women are less likely to support aggressive action to alleviate those risks and threats.3,4 Notwithstanding the European Journal of International Security 45 consistency of this finding over decades of research, we are told that ‘the underlying mechanisms driving it are only modestly understood’.5Searching for ‘underlying mechanisms’ implies, that we understand the gaps we are trying to explain in the first place
We could have searched for the ‘mechanisms’ that might account for these gender differences
In taking the novel step of bringing public opinion and feminist security studies (FSS) research into closer conversation our analysis demonstrates that this would be premature: what lies behind these apparent gaps in opinion is complex and first demands careful interpretation and scrutiny
Summary
Public opinion research has found that gender differences on security issues of war, peace, and the use of military force are ‘a pattern found throughout the Western world’.1 This research suggests that, while women perceive more risks and threats to security men,2 ‘the largest and most consistent policy gender gap in public opinion polling’ is that women are less likely to support aggressive action to alleviate those risks and threats. Notwithstanding the. We offer new understandings about the ways men and women perceive security threats and support aggressive action in response by bringing together key insights from feminist security studies and public opinion research. FSS has typically analysed small-N qualitative data about security discourses, demonstrating that they are reflective of gendered and racialised power relations – in terms of which issues count as matters of security, whose security concerns are heard, and the types of security knowledges which are privileged – and have material consequences for different groups in society.10 Both bodies of scholarship are well-established and command significant readership, our study is a timely intervention given that recently their methodological choices have been called into question. The first is a brief discussion of the principal explanations for what is referred to as the ‘gender gap’ in public opinion work on security, and a summary of the main FSS contributions to understanding of gender and security This discussion identifies the core empirical, theoretical, and methodological differences between these approaches. We conclude with a discussion of what the complexity we identify implies about the need to revisit and question assumptions, methods and analytical approaches in order to generate new knowledge that can develop the field of gender and security further
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
