Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Peace Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by NINCIC, M.
Right arrow Articles by NINCIC, D. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Race, Gender, and War

MIROSLAV NINCIC

Department of Political Science, University of California, Davis

DONNA J. NINCIC

California Maritime Academy, California State University

This article seeks to improve our grasp of the societal foundations of US foreign policy by examining how race and gender - two fundamental dimensions of social stratification of US society - affect support for military force in the pursuit of external objectives. It is generally appreciated that, in the United States, women are less inclined to support armed intervention than are men, and feminist theory provides some foundation for explaining the gap. It is less widely recognized that a similar gap separates the attitudes of African-Americans and white Americans, but there is little in the social science literature to suggest why this should be so. The authors examine a number of possible explanations for the parallel, focusing both on attributes that are specific to women and blacks, and on one common to both groups (a high level of political alienation) but not shared by white men. They conclude that, while alienation partially accounts for the parallel attitudes toward force, properties specific to the two demographic groups nevertheless carry part of the burden for explaining their shared relative aversion to military intervention.

Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 39, No. 5, 547-568 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/0022343302039005003


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
European Journal of International RelationsHome page
B. M. Russett
Democracy, War and Expansion through Historical Lenses
European Journal of International Relations, March 1, 2009; 15(1): 9 - 36.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Conflict Management and Peace ScienceHome page
S. S. Gartner
Secondary Casualty Information: Casualty Uncertainty, Female Casualties, and Wartime Support
Conflict Management and Peace Science, April 1, 2008; 25(2): 98 - 111.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Conflict ResolutionHome page
H. Schoen
Personality Traits and Foreign Policy Attitudes in German Public Opinion
Journal of Conflict Resolution, June 1, 2007; 51(3): 408 - 430.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Conflict ResolutionHome page
W. A. Boettcher III
Military Intervention Decisions Regarding Humanitarian Crises: Framing Induced Risk Behavior
Journal of Conflict Resolution, June 1, 2004; 48(3): 331 - 355.
[Abstract] [PDF]