Sylvia Bashevkin – författare

What difference does gender make to foreign diplomacy? What do we know about women's participation as decision-makers in international affairs? Is it fair to assume, as many observers do, that female elites will mirror the relatively pacifist preferences of women in the general public as well as the claims of progressive feminist movements? And, of particular importance to this book, what consequences follow from the appointment of "firsts" to these posts? Inspired by recent work in the field of feminist diplomatic history, this book offers the first comparative examination of women's presence in senior national security positions in the United States executive branch. Sylvia Bashevkin looks at four high-profile appointees in the United States since 1980: Jeane Kirkpatrick during the Reagan years, Madeleine Albright in the Clinton era, Condoleezza Rice during the George W. Bush presidency, and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the first Obama mandate. Bashevkin explores the extent to which each of these women was able to fully participate in a domain long dominated by men, focusing in particular on the extent to which each shaped foreign policy in meaningful ways. She looks particularly at two specific phenomena: first, the influence of female decision-makers, notably their ability to make measurable difference to the understanding and practice of national security policy; and second, leaders' actions with respect to matters of war and women's rights. The track records of these four women reveal not just a consistent willingness to pursue muscular, aggressive approaches to international relations, but also widely divergent views about feminism. Women as Foreign Policy Leaders shows how Kirkpatrick, Albright, Rice, and Clinton staked out their presence on the international scene and provided a crucial antidote to the silencing of women's voices in global politics.

What difference does gender make to foreign diplomacy? What do we know about women''s participation as decision-makers in international affairs? Is it fair to assume, as many observers do, that female elites will mirror the relatively pacifist preferences of women in the general public as well as the claims of progressive feminist movements? And, of particular importance to this book, what consequences follow from the appointment of "firsts" to these posts? Inspired by recent work in the field of feminist diplomatic history, this book offers the first comparative examination of women''s presence in senior national security positions in the United States executive branch.Sylvia Bashevkin looks at four high-profile appointees in the United States since 1980: Jeane Kirkpatrick during the Reagan years, Madeleine Albright in the Clinton era, Condoleezza Rice during the George W. Bush presidency, and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the first Obama mandate. Bashevkin explores the extent to which each of these women was able to fully participate in a domain long dominated by men, focusing in particular on the extent to which each shaped foreign policy in meaningful ways. She looks particularly at two specific phenomena: first, the influence of female decision-makers, notably their ability to make measurable difference to the understanding and practice of national security policy; and second, leaders'' actions with respect to matters of war and women''s rights. The track records of these four women reveal not just a consistent willingness to pursue muscular, aggressive approaches to international relations, but also widely divergent views about feminism. Women as Foreign Policy Leaders shows how Kirkpatrick, Albright, Rice, and Clinton staked out their presence on the international scene and provided a crucial antidote to the silencing of women''s voices in global politics.

What difference does gender make to foreign diplomacy? What do we know about women''s participation as decision-makers in international affairs? Is it fair to assume, as many observers do, that female elites will mirror the relatively pacifist preferences of women in the general public as well as the claims of progressive feminist movements? And, of particular importance to this book, what consequences follow from the appointment of "firsts" to these posts? Inspired by recent work in the field of feminist diplomatic history, this book offers the first comparative examination of women''s presence in senior national security positions in the United States executive branch.Sylvia Bashevkin looks at four high-profile appointees in the United States since 1980: Jeane Kirkpatrick during the Reagan years, Madeleine Albright in the Clinton era, Condoleezza Rice during the George W. Bush presidency, and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the first Obama mandate. Bashevkin explores the extent to which each of these women was able to fully participate in a domain long dominated by men, focusing in particular on the extent to which each shaped foreign policy in meaningful ways. She looks particularly at two specific phenomena: first, the influence of female decision-makers, notably their ability to make measurable difference to the understanding and practice of national security policy; and second, leaders'' actions with respect to matters of war and women''s rights. The track records of these four women reveal not just a consistent willingness to pursue muscular, aggressive approaches to international relations, but also widely divergent views about feminism. Women as Foreign Policy Leaders shows how Kirkpatrick, Albright, Rice, and Clinton staked out their presence on the international scene and provided a crucial antidote to the silencing of women''s voices in global politics.

An analysis of Pan-Canadian nationalism on a political level.

What difference does gender make to foreign diplomacy? What do we know about women's participation as decision-makers in international affairs? Is it fair to assume, as many observers do, that female elites will mirror the relatively pacifist preferences of women in the general public as well as the claims of progressive feminist movements? And, of particular importance to this book, what consequences follow from the appointment of "firsts" to these posts? Inspired by recent work in the field of feminist diplomatic history, this book offers the first comparative examination of women's presence in senior national security positions in the United States executive branch. Sylvia Bashevkin looks at four high-profile appointees in the United States since 1980: Jeane Kirkpatrick during the Reagan years, Madeleine Albright in the Clinton era, Condoleezza Rice during the George W. Bush presidency, and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the first Obama mandate. Bashevkin explores the extent to which each of these women was able to fully participate in a domain long dominated by men, focusing in particular on the extent to which each shaped foreign policy in meaningful ways. She looks particularly at two specific phenomena: first, the influence of female decision-makers, notably their ability to make measurable difference to the understanding and practice of national security policy; and second, leaders' actions with respect to matters of war and women's rights. The track records of these four women reveal not just a consistent willingness to pursue muscular, aggressive approaches to international relations, but also widely divergent views about feminism. Women as Foreign Policy Leaders shows how Kirkpatrick, Albright, Rice, and Clinton staked out their presence on the international scene and provided a crucial antidote to the silencing of women's voices in global politics.

Feminism underwent perhaps its most difficult challenges in the 1980s, when conservatism reached the height of its influence in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. This study explores some beliefs about women and women's movements under Conservative and Republican leaders. By identifying the policies and goals held in common by feminists in all three countries and tracing their collision course with the conservative policies of the three administrations, Sylvia Bashevkin is able to document setbacks but also some progress, despite the right-of-centre leaders. She also seeks to challenge the assumption that organzied interests in the United States are less vulnerable in hard times than those in parliamentary systems, finding that the elections of Ronald Reagan, Brian Mulroney and Margaret Thatcher had similar effects on both sides of the Atlantic. The book is organized thematically rather than by country, describing the difficult relationship between feminists and conservatives during a time of bitter ideological and policy battles when the vibrant social movements of the 1960s and 1970s were seriously threatened.

First published in 2002. Social critics, policy makers, and the public in general frequently overlook the crucial status of women as the main recipients of welfare and as providers of paid and unpaid care. The eight original essays in this collection remedy this situation. By comparing welfare policy in advanced industrial countries and the welfare experiences of different populations of women--black or white, young and old--with that of the male experience, Sylvia Bashevkin and her contributors challenge the Moynihan report; the conservative fatherhood movement; and neoliberal philosophy, politics and practice. Women's Work is Never Done adds a new dimension to the important public discussion of women's status as citizens, disparities in welfare reform, and poverty in a globalized world.

First published in 2002. Social critics, policy makers, and the public in general frequently overlook the crucial status of women as the main recipients of welfare and as providers of paid and unpaid care. The eight original essays in this collection remedy this situation. By comparing welfare policy in advanced industrial countries and the welfare experiences of different populations of women--black or white, young and old--with that of the male experience, Sylvia Bashevkin and her contributors challenge the Moynihan report; the conservative fatherhood movement; and neoliberal philosophy, politics and practice. Women's Work is Never Done adds a new dimension to the important public discussion of women's status as citizens, disparities in welfare reform, and poverty in a globalized world.

In the age of globalization, state restructuring is changing thepolitical landscape. How does reshaping local government affect citizeninvolvement in public life? As cities move between centralized anddecentralized governance and conservative and progressive leadership,what brings out the best and the worst in civic engagement?In this thought-provoking book, Sylvia Bashevkin examines theconsequences of divergent restructuring experiences in London andToronto. By focusing on the forced amalgamation of local boroughs inToronto and the creation of a new metropolitan authority in London,Tales of Two Cities explores the fallout for women as urbancitizens. Ultimately, context is crucial to whether municipal changesignals pessimism or promise.Clear, insightful, and prescient, Tales of Two Cities will appeal tothose interested in civic affairs, political inclusion, and the futureof democracy in major urban centres.

In the age of globalization, state restructuring is changing thepolitical landscape. How does reshaping local government affect citizeninvolvement in public life? As cities move between centralized anddecentralized governance and conservative and progressive leadership,what brings out the best and the worst in civic engagement?In this thought-provoking book, Sylvia Bashevkin examines theconsequences of divergent restructuring experiences in London andToronto. By focusing on the forced amalgamation of local boroughs inToronto and the creation of a new metropolitan authority in London,Tales of Two Cities explores the fallout for women as urbancitizens. Ultimately, context is crucial to whether municipal changesignals pessimism or promise.Clear, insightful, and prescient, Tales of Two Cities will appeal tothose interested in civic affairs, political inclusion, and the futureof democracy in major urban centres.

From the days of the fur trade through the contemporary period, women have played important roles in the public life of Canada. Until the 1970s, however, these contributions were generally overlooked. Opening Doors Wider looks at the progress made in the last forty years to raise the profile of women's involvement in public life.The contributors focus on two questions with reference to community activism, the politics of feminist organizing, parties and elections, and the communications environment in which politicians operate. First, are the doors to participation presently open wider than they were in the past? Second, how can these doors be opened wider, both in terms of real-world participation and our scholarly understanding of public engagement?These tightly argued essays shed new light on the quality of public involvement of women in one of the world's most stable democracies. The nuanced discussion of solutions as well as problems makes it an indispensable resource for students and practitioners of politics at all levels.

Welfare Hot Buttons provides one of the first comparative assessments of contemporary social policy change in three Western countries: Canada, the United States, and Great Britain. Sylvia Bashevkin probes the fate of single mothers on social assistance during the period when three "third way" political executives were in office – Bill Clinton (US), Jean Chrétien (Canada), and Tony Blair (Great Britain) – and argues that despite seemingly progressive campaign rhetoric, the social assistance policy realities under each of these three leaders were in crucial respects more punitive and restrictive than those of their neo-conservative predecessors in the 1980s.Bashevkin addresses even more contentious issues in her study, including the question of whether Anglo-American welfare states are being eclipsed by what she views as newly emergent duty states. In her comparative approach and in her substantive analysis, Bashevkin makes an original and critical contribution to the existing body of literature on social policy.

First published in 2002. Social critics, policy makers, and the public in general frequently overlook the crucial status of women as the main recipients of welfare and as providers of paid and unpaid care. The eight original essays in this collection remedy this situation. By comparing welfare policy in advanced industrial countries and the welfare experiences of different populations of women--black or white, young and old--with that of the male experience, Sylvia Bashevkin and her contributors challenge the Moynihan report; the conservative fatherhood movement; and neoliberal philosophy, politics and practice. Women''s Work is Never Done adds a new dimension to the important public discussion of women''s status as citizens, disparities in welfare reform, and poverty in a globalized world.

First published in 2002. Social critics, policy makers, and the public in general frequently overlook the crucial status of women as the main recipients of welfare and as providers of paid and unpaid care. The eight original essays in this collection remedy this situation. By comparing welfare policy in advanced industrial countries and the welfare experiences of different populations of women--black or white, young and old--with that of the male experience, Sylvia Bashevkin and her contributors challenge the Moynihan report; the conservative fatherhood movement; and neoliberal philosophy, politics and practice. Women''s Work is Never Done adds a new dimension to the important public discussion of women''s status as citizens, disparities in welfare reform, and poverty in a globalized world.

Welfare Hot Buttons provides one of the first comparative assessments of contemporary social policy change in three Western countries: Canada, the United States, and Great Britain. Sylvia Bashevkin probes the fate of single mothers on social assistance during the period when three "third way" political executives were in office – Bill Clinton (US), Jean Chrétien (Canada), and Tony Blair (Great Britain) – and argues that despite seemingly progressive campaign rhetoric, the social assistance policy realities under each of these three leaders were in crucial respects more punitive and restrictive than those of their neo-conservative predecessors in the 1980s.Bashevkin addresses even more contentious issues in her study, including the question of whether Anglo-American welfare states are being eclipsed by what she views as newly emergent duty states. In her comparative approach and in her substantive analysis, Bashevkin makes an original and critical contribution to the existing body of literature on social policy.

Welfare Hot Buttons provides one of the first comparative assessments of contemporary social policy change in three Western countries: Canada, the United States, and Great Britain. Sylvia Bashevkin probes the fate of single mothers on social assistance during the period when three "third way" political executives were in office – Bill Clinton (US), Jean Chrétien (Canada), and Tony Blair (Great Britain) – and argues that despite seemingly progressive campaign rhetoric, the social assistance policy realities under each of these three leaders were in crucial respects more punitive and restrictive than those of their neo-conservative predecessors in the 1980s.Bashevkin addresses even more contentious issues in her study, including the question of whether Anglo-American welfare states are being eclipsed by what she views as newly emergent duty states. In her comparative approach and in her substantive analysis, Bashevkin makes an original and critical contribution to the existing body of literature on social policy.