Publications

Norosky, Jenna. “Distinguishing between the ‘soldier’ and the ‘brute’: engraving hierarchies of masculinity in conflict-related sexual violence discourse.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 26, no. 3 (2024): 544–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2024.2345097.

Norosky, Jenna, and Charli Carpenter. “The Right to Flee the Dangers of War: Rethinking Ukraine’s Gender-Based Restriction on Civilian Men’s Freedom of Movement.” Human Rights Quarterly 46, no. 3 (2024): 461–491. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2024.a933873.

“The many metaphors of silence: Conceptualizing global ‘non-issues’ as collaborative structures of silence” (under review).

Abstract: Silence is a powerful metaphor, but functions as a black box within which many distinct social phenomena coexist. Consequently, metaphorical slippage makes it difficult to operationalize silence in empirical research. First, I show the need for greater metaphorical specification in the study of silence through the example of silence as a collaborative structure, which cannot be understood without breaking down different modalities of silence involving different actors. Next, I demonstrate the utility of conceptualizing silence as a collaborative structure for the study of IR through a brief discussion of ‘non-issues’ that fail to surface on the global agenda. Drawing from extensive data collection and analyses on the previously neglected issue of conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) against men and boys, I then show how understanding this gap as a collaborative structure accommodates a more rigorous account of why it prevailed. Considering the issue’s increased recognition, I conclude with a cautionary explication of how the framing of CRSV against men and boys as a ‘silenced’ issue both limits approaches to addressing the problem and adversely impacts intra-network advocacy relationships. This underscores the significance of the unique methodological problems with studying silence involving the imposition of the ‘horizon of expectation’.

“‘Adding men’ to gender-based violence responses in humanitarian contexts: Challenges and opportunities in an era of backlash” (writing in progress).

Abstract: Conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) against men and boys now receives wide acknowledgement as an emergent global concern. However, contestation remains as to how this issue relates to existing efforts to prevent/respond to gender-based violence (GBV) against women and girls in conflict and other humanitarian contexts. While most everyone agrees that all survivors need access to life-saving services and affirming care, the theoretical and practical linkages remain ambiguous, and some pose concerns as to how recent attention to male survivors will impact the ability of the international community to respond to the needs of female survivors. What explains this uneven and challenging integration? To answer this question, I draw from extensive interviews with a diverse group of practitioners on causes and consequences of the increased visibility of CRSV against men and boys – including individuals who have been a part of these efforts, those who have raised concerns over them, and still more who fall somewhere in the middle – as well as participant observation data at two major conferences related to CRSV. I find that while concrete material factors underlie some of the more tepid responses amongst feminists, much of it is tied more to the frame through which the message to ‘include men’ is often delivered. I identify how the history of feminist advocacy and the current context of global anti-feminist backlash shapes sensitivities to certain narratives surrounding men and boy survivors which can be interpreted as competitive or even anti-feminist. My aim here is not to provide any assessment of what the relationship between efforts on behalf of female and male survivors ‘should’ be (for example, whether GBV includes men and boys), but instead, to map out the terrain which makes it challenging for any sort of productive dialogue to occur, highlighting the factor which can most easily be addressed.

“From a ‘war on women’ to ‘a security issue, not a women’s issue’: Gender, sexuality and the securitization of wartime sexual violence” (writing in progress).

Abstract: While previously referred to as “human rights’ last taboo,” today the visibility of conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) against men and boys is far more pronounced at the international level. What explains this shift, and what can be learned from it? Drawing from a collection of advocacy documents and institutional records assembled through both inductive and deductive logics, as well as interviews with 35 participants constituting the heterogenous CRSV issue network and participant observation at two major international conferences related to CRSV, I propose a two-pronged argument as to how the securitization of CRSV created an opening for this issue. First, at the practical level, securitization necessitated a redirection of resources resulting in the proliferation of institutional and governmental architectures specifically focused on CRSV, whereas previously, it was bundled as part of the broader Women, Peace and Security agenda. This prompted the international community to identify ‘holes’ in existing approaches to CRSV. Second, at the ideational level, securitization entailed significant constructive ambiguity regarding gender and sexuality, thus enabling the reinterpretation of CRSV against men and boys in diverse and even contradictory ways which overcame previously silencing factors. Drawing from three case studies, I show how different actors situated the issue within feminist, ‘gender-neutral,’ and conservative approaches to gender/sexuality. While previous analyses emphasize how securitization narrows understandings of CRSV, I reinterpret the ‘weapon of war’ framework as a radically open tool which can be appropriated to suit a variety of political projects, enabling in this instance surprisingly widespread recognition of male survivors. I suggest that securitization should be understood as a process with the capacity not create not only new meanings and rationalizations for otherwise ‘extraordinary’ measures, but also opportunities to surface ‘untouchable’ subjects. I conclude by reflecting on the challenges entailed by constructive ambiguity for moving beyond recognition into action.