Women as Foreign Policy Leaders

This book is an important contribution to the literature. Bashevkin's comprehensive and detailed analysis is essential for scholars interested in the interplay between gender, politics, and international relations. * Perspectives on Politics *
In her book, Bashevkin specifically focuses on the executive branch and attempts to highlight the impact of four female decision-makers. The case-study chapters provide a stimulating narrative, combining historical events and processes with the upbringing and personal experiences of each individual woman. This interesting and important book opens up the way for future research on the topic of women as leaders. * International Affairs *
Expanding upon the works of feminist historians, Bashevkin's aim to provide a feminist analysis of some of these women's defeminization (or masculinization as Bashevkin would characterize it) of themselves and their agendas as national security leaders is laudable. Indeed, little scholarship has produced such a detailed account of top women's leadership, especially their adoption of a masculine repertoire in an extremely masculine space. * Shan-Jan Sarah Liu, University of Edinburgh, Politics & Gender *
The biographical information on family, education and entry in politics of each of the women leaders are presented by Bashevkin with great sensitivity, empathy and sorority. Beyond the opinion that their ideas and decisions on foreign policy deserve [...], the reader cannot but sympathize with all four when he is presented with the details of their trajectories, each of them marked by effort, merit and resilience, qualities without which they could not have managed to stand out in the masculinist and elitist environment of foreign policy. * Monica Salomon, Revista Estudos Feministas, Florianópolis *
The difference between historians and political scientists is that historians tell the story and draw conclusions; political scientists often over theorize. Bashevkin (Toronto) has produced a very interesting comparative study of four women who held senior foreign policy posts during the last three decades-Jeane Kirkpatrick, Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, and Hillary Clinton. Her conclusions are hardly shocking. Women leaders are not monolithic; they reflect different experiences, points of view, ideologies, and decision-making styles, which may or may not mirror the larger female electorate. The four women did not act differently from men in terms of the employment of military power. Each had varying emphasis on how important feminist issues were in their policy recommendations. The profiles and comparative analysis are interesting and useful.  * J. P. Dunn, Converse College *