Date of Award
1-1-2025
Document Type
Dissertation
Degree Name
Ph.D. in Political Science
First Advisor
Susan Allen
Second Advisor
Gregory Love
Third Advisor
Laura Huber
School
University of Mississippi
Relational Format
dissertation/thesis
Abstract
This dissertation challenges the foundational assumptions of the “guns versus butter” debate by recentering gender, insecurity, and state legitimacy in the analysis of public opinion. Drawing on over 300,000 individual responses across 80 countries, and original survey data from post-conflict Colombia, it demonstrates that the commonly held belief that women are more likely to prioritize welfare over security is both context-dependent and empirically unstable. Rather than reflecting innate preferences, gendered policy attitudes emerge from lived experiences of violence, inequality, and institutional trust.
The first empirical chapter reveals a striking reversal of conventional expectations in the Global South: in regions where insecurity is internal, intimate, and often state-inflicted—such as Latin America, MENA, and Sub-Saharan Africa—women are significantly more likely than men to prioritize security over welfare. These preferences are not anomalies but consistent regional patterns tied to gender inequality and state failure.
The second chapter expands the analysis to examine how gender intersects with age and income. In high-income countries, age—not gender—best explains variation in preferences, while in lower-income regions, gendered security preferences sharpen. Across contexts, the Gender Inequality Index emerges as a powerful predictor of public opinion, suggesting that in unequal societies, demand for security functions as a substitute for absent protection or equality.
The final chapter grounds these insights in Colombia. There, despite elevated perceptions of insecurity, women are more likely than men to reject both increased security and welfare spending. This “opt-out” response signals not disengagement but critique—reflecting widespread disillusionment with a state perceived as ineffective or untrustworthy.
Altogether, the dissertation offers a theoretical reframing: the guns versus butter debate is not a universal ideological cleavage but a political barometer of state legitimacy and gendered experience. When women demand security—or reject both guns and butter—it is not a deviation from egalitarianism, but a rational response to marginalization. By centering those most often left out of mainstream security discourse, this project fundamentally reconfigures how we understand gendered public opinion and the politics of insecurity.
Recommended Citation
Tagert, Elaine Elizabeth, "Beyond Guns vs. Butter: Gendered Dynamics in Security Policy Preferences" (2025). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 3398.
https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd/3398