Search results

The state of the relations between the armed forces and society in Italy displays some general features. The first is the presence of a very broad-based pacifism that has two different origins which, although quite different from each other and in some ways opposing, often end up by uniting or allying. These two traditions are a Marxist–anarchic, or more generically leftist, one, and a Catholic one that is still very strong in our country. Since the end of the Second World War, the extent of this pacifism, often with a good dose of antimilitarism, has always made relations between the country and its armed forces difficult.

Generally, this study contributes to our understanding of the situations when conflict facilitates performance versus when it hampers performance. More specifically, the study distinguishes between conflict potential, conflict stimulus, and actual conflict. We present two hypotheses that compare two competing views to further disentangle whether and when conflict is functional. Our empirical tests, using a sample of Mennonite congregations, lead us to speculate that conflict may be functional for individual‐centered performance measures, but dysfunctional for group‐based performance measures.

The state of the relations between the armed forces and society in Italy displays some general features that should be described before going on to the analysis of the research data. The first is the presence of a very broad-based pacifism that has two different origins which, although quite different from each other, often end up by uniting or allying. These two traditions are a Marxist-anarchic, or a more generically leftist one, and a Catholic one that is still very strong in our country. Since the end of the Second World War, the extent of this pacifism, often with a good dose of antimilitarism, has always made relations between the country and its armed forces difficult. This situation has shown some rather significant changes in the last decade, however. Italy's ever-increasing participation in peace support operations (PSOs), which is very extensive in proportion to the commitments of other comparable countries, has given new popularity to the armed forces, both because of their use in functions more easily reconciled with pacifist ideals and because, finally put to the test,¹ they have demonstrated capabilities and skills that for many have been a revelation. The transition from conscription to voluntary service, although certainly heralding other problems in the relationship with public opinion, has also allowed the armed forces to shed the unpopularity due to the sacrifices required of male citizens. Added to these aspects is the rapid change of the international situation which, with the materialising of a significant threat from Islamic fundamentalism, has brought the problem of security² to the attention of everyone. All of the surveys conducted in the last decade, therefore, have recorded an increased level of social acceptance of the armed forces in Italy.

Men make war; women make peace. Men make war; women make children. Men make war because women make children. Because men make war, women make children. Women make peace because they make children.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the contributions of women teachers to the war effort at home in Australia and New Zealand and in Egypt and Europe between 1914 and 1918.

Framed as a feminist transnational history, this research paper drew upon extensive primary and secondary source material in order to identify the women teachers. It provides comparative analyses using a thematic approach providing examples of women teachers war work at home and abroad.

Insights are offered into the opportunities provided by the First World War for channelling the abilities and leadership skills of women teachers at home and abroad. Canvassed also are the tensions for German heritage teachers; ideological differences concerning patriotism and pacifism and issues arising from government attitudes on both sides of the Tasman towards women’s war service.

This is likely the only research offering combined Australian–New Zealand analyses of women teacher’s war service, either in support at home in Australia and New Zealand or working as volunteers abroad. To date, the efforts of Australian and New Zealand women teachers have largely gone unrecognised.

Tourism does not flourish in areas subject to armed conflict and strong, violent sociopolitical instability. This axiom has obvious implications on the debate in tourism studies on the risks associated with armed conflicts. The question therefore remains as to how (and if) tourism can contribute to the reduction of global conflicts. This chapter reflects on how the men and women perceive tourism (from both supply and demand side) in this specific period of ‘End of History’ (Fukuyama, 1992). Does tourism reflect the Kantian idea of hospitality in the context of a Perpetual Peace – thus a force for good – or is it just another instrument at the service of neo-liberalism and unbridled economism? Finally, a possible alternative is proposed for the use of tourism in reducing structural and cultural violence.

Drawing on interviews with men and women gun carriers, this paper considers the intersection of femininity and guns. It argues that two sets of expectations shape the normative relationship between women and guns: First, armed women are a blind spot in feminist discourse, which tends to reproduce the “pacifist presumption” that women are nonviolent caretakers and peacemakers. Second, contemporary pro-gun discourse often bases women’s gun carry within their duties and obligations as mothers in a form of “martial maternalism.” Inflected with a post-feminist appropriation of rights and equality, this pro-gun discourse reproduces gender binaries through a discourse of gender inclusivity. Following previous analyses that emphasize the contradictory politics of gender in conservative spaces, my analysis emphasizes how the gendered politics of guns is sustained by multiple, though not necessarily shared, understandings of women’s guns by men and women within American gun culture.

Few scholars become notable figures in their areas of specialization. Understanding how and why some scholars are identified by their unusual accomplishments, therefore, can be difficult, especially when some scholars achieve more notable careers and are invisible in their professions than others, more recognized colleagues. The reasons for some scholars’ visibility and their colleagues’ invisibility may be unclear or ambiguous. One common reason for invisibility is being a woman in a patriarchal discipline. Men’s ideas, values, and careers are privileged and more highly rated in a patriarchal subject like sociology.

Here, I analyze case studies of invisibility that emerge from deliberate suppression but focus on the more hidden processes of making women invisible in sociology. These less overt processes of invisibility require different theories, networks, and methods to discover the women’s notable careers than those used in examples of more overt processes.

Making invisible women visible requires multiple processes, over time, by a number of professionals and gatekeepers.