Publications
Aili Mari Tripp and Thomas S. Worth. 2022. “War, Peace, and Security.” In The Routledge Global History of Feminism. Eds. Bonnie G. Smith and Nova Robinson. 414-427.
Thomas S. Worth. 2023. "Book review of Masculinities, Gender and International Relations. By Terrell Carver and Laura Lyddon." Politics & Gender. doi:10.1017/S1743923X23000272
Thomas S. Worth. Forthcoming. Book review of The First Political Order: How Sex Shapes Governance and National Security Worldwide, by Valerie M. Hudson, Donna Lee Bowen, and Perpetua Lynne Nielsen. International Studies Review.
Works in Progress
“Rethinking Gender in Survey Research: Comparing Four Measures of Femininity and Masculinity.”
“A War of Their Own? Masculinity, Femininity, and the Gender Gap in Support for War.”
“Phalluses in Foreign Policy, Or: George Carlin’s ‘Bigger Dick’ Theory of Foreign Policy.”
“Relationships for Dummies.” (With Andrew H. Kydd)
“Gender.” In Concepts in International Relations: Framing World Politics. Ed. Felix Berenskoetter. SAGE. (With Laura Sjoberg)
Aili Mari Tripp and Thomas S. Worth. 2022. “War, Peace, and Security.” In The Routledge Global History of Feminism. Eds. Bonnie G. Smith and Nova Robinson. 414-427.
- This chapter provides an overview of feminist approaches to peace and security, including peacebuilding, peacekeeping, conflict, and war. We show how Feminist Security Studies (FSS), from an academic perspective, has revealed discriminatory and gendered practices in the study of peace and security. Similarly, from a practitioner perspective, the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda highlights the importance of sex and gender in peace and security practices. These literatures and practices critique mainstream understandings of what it means to be a man/woman or masculine/feminine and show how these understandings lead to policies based on erroneous assumptions about men as soldiers and women as civilians. A common theme in feminist critiques of conventional security studies is that security is not merely found through the prevention of war but through the empowerment of groups and individuals. Thus, they suggest that the solutions to war need to address structural inequalities, including those manifested in patriarchy.
Thomas S. Worth. 2023. "Book review of Masculinities, Gender and International Relations. By Terrell Carver and Laura Lyddon." Politics & Gender. doi:10.1017/S1743923X23000272
Thomas S. Worth. Forthcoming. Book review of The First Political Order: How Sex Shapes Governance and National Security Worldwide, by Valerie M. Hudson, Donna Lee Bowen, and Perpetua Lynne Nielsen. International Studies Review.
Works in Progress
“Rethinking Gender in Survey Research: Comparing Four Measures of Femininity and Masculinity.”
- I explore how to measure gender identity on scales of masculinity and femininity, rather than a simple binary. Drawing on previous literature, I compare four different measures based on two criteria: the type of measurement (numerical or categorical) and the number of scales (unidimensional or bidimensional). I use two surveys to understand how respondents classify their gender using each of these different approaches. I argue that a 6-category categorical scale provides the best tradeoff between conceptual complexity and measurement specificity, and is also easy for non-specialists to use in their research.
“A War of Their Own? Masculinity, Femininity, and the Gender Gap in Support for War.”
- The gender gap in support for war is one of the most consistent findings in public opinion research. Historically, women have been less likely than men to support war under most circumstances. Using survey experiments, Brooks and Valentino (2011) test whether varying the stakes of the war or the context of the war alter the gender gap. They find that when the war is framed as humanitarian (rather than strategic/economic), women become more likely to support the war than men. Similarly, they find that when the war is framed as authorized by the United Nations Security Council (rather than not authorized), women become more likely to support the war than men. First, I sought to replicate these findings. Second, I sought to determine if measuring respondent masculinity and femininity could help explain these gender differences. I was unable to replicate their findings. Instead, I found that women were more likely to support the war in both experiments, under both conditions. Furthermore, I found that feminine people, regardless of their sex/binary gender, were more likely than masculine people to support the war in both experiments, under both conditions. However, neutral people (those who are both masculine and feminine, or neither masculine nor feminine) were more likely than feminine and masculine people to support the war when it was framed as humanitarian, and alternatively less likely to support the war when it was framed as authorized by the UNSC. More research is needed to probe these findings.
“Phalluses in Foreign Policy, Or: George Carlin’s ‘Bigger Dick’ Theory of Foreign Policy.”
- In late 2017, tense relations between the United States and North Korea led President Trump and Chairman Kim to trade insults via Twitter. Trump referred to Kim as “Little Rocket Man” and bragged that “I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my button works.” Gender scholars quickly noted that the phallic subtext was obvious and speculated about the intended effect of Trump’s invocation of his penis size, strength, and effectiveness in foreign policy (and the “Little Rocket” of his adversary). However, no typology exists to help us understand the use of phallic discourse in foreign policy. How common is it? What are the intended effects? What are the actual effects? This paper begins to address this gap in two ways. First, I document the existence of phallic discourse in foreign policy. I draw on examples as wide-ranging as presidential statements to political cartoons. Second, I develop a typology of the intended effects of phallic discourse in US foreign policy. Phallic discourse is often used for one of two reasons: to enhance one’s masculinity or diminish another’s through two types of metaphors: castration (emasculation) and/or penetration (feminization). In making these claims, I draw on the comedian George Carlin’s “bigger dick” theory of foreign policy. Doing so helps demonstrate how this project speaks to more than just gender scholars. Future research will address the actual effects of phallic discourse in foreign policy.
“Relationships for Dummies.” (With Andrew H. Kydd)
- When is a binary (dummy) identity variable acceptable to use, and when should a more nuanced variable with more than two categories be used? In this paper, we suggest that the ideal number of identity categories is based on the number of local maxima and minima in a research study. In other words, the ideal number of identity categories depends on what your research question is.
“Gender.” In Concepts in International Relations: Framing World Politics. Ed. Felix Berenskoetter. SAGE. (With Laura Sjoberg)
- Textbook chapter on gender in international relations.
