LAUSR

analysis — three of which seem worth mentioning. First, at places in the book, it feels as though structural violence is a feature that the Other experiences (e.g., the discussion of the United States on p. 219)—a bias that dents the credibility of Berry’s perspective. Second, I think that the book oversimplifies the relationship between political participation and power. The title itself, when mapped onto the book’s central argument, loosely equates political participation with power. All forms of participation are lumped into this “power.” I believe that this framing takes inadequate advantage of a significant research program on gender and agency in global politics—one that shows a complex, rather than linear, relationship among gender, political participation, and power. The book could have made a more significant contribution by unpacking what (and when and how) political participation translates to power, and how the concepts of power and of political participation may themselves be gendered. Third, I am concerned with the book’s conceptualization of war.While Berry (correctly) seeks to complicate the war/not war dichotomy, a discussion of the politics of naming (pp. 22–25) notes that the term genocide will not be used, justifying this choice based on concerns that “genocide” oversimplifies conflict and leads to an incorrect perception that conflict atrocities were one-sided. This section is, in my view, both empirically and normatively problematic, in itself and as it impacts the rest of the text. Empirically, it leads to awkward conversations about the unique scale of the conflicts in the book’s cases (p. 213), and to difficulty clearly accounting for the targeting of men in each genocide (e.g., p. 24). Normatively, there may be value in distinguishing genocide from nongenocide. Berry’s purpose could be accomplished by describing the conflicts with more detailed, rather than less specific, terms. For example, the Rwandan memorials around the conflict in 1994 describe both genocide and a brutal civil war, distinguishable in some ways but concurrent and overlapping. This description addresses the author’s concerns about oversimplifying responsibility, without abandoning the term “genocide.” Overall, I enjoyed readingWomen,War, and Power and highly recommend it. Its empirical work is very high quality, and it makes important theoretical contributions. I look forward to continuing the conversations that it has started.