About Book

This article critically examines how gender is framed within international and national policy documents aimed at preventing terrorism and violent extremism. The authors analyze a broad range of policy texts (such as United Nations strategies, EU action plans, and national counter-extremism policies) to identify assumptions, expectations, and gendered roles embedded in these documents. They argue that many policies adopt overly optimistic or simplistic views of women as inherently peaceful actors or natural peacebuilders, thereby ignoring structural inequalities and power dynamics. At the same time, the authors caution that such framings risk reinforcing stereotypical gender roles and may marginalize men’s involvement in prevention. The relevance is high in today’s world where gender is increasingly central to security discourse: by interrogating these policy narratives, the study offers vital insights for policymakers, gender equality advocates, and practitioners in counterterrorism, suggesting that more nuanced, intersectional, and context-sensitive gender approaches are necessary to avoid reinforcing harmful assumptions and to design more effective, equitable prevention strategies.This article is a substantive and thought‑provoking contribution to the literature on gender and security, especially within the sphere of preventing violent extremism. It challenges prevailing policy assumptions and offers a critical lens that is essential for more inclusive and effective prevention.The strengths of this work lie in its rigorous policy analysis, its critical feminist theoretical grounding, and its attention to the gap between how policy documents portray gender and the lived realities of individuals in radicalization contexts. The authors bring together gender studies and security studies in a way that reveals how gendered scripts in prevention strategies may perpetuate inequality even while aiming for peace. A limitation is that the article focuses on policy texts rather than on-field empirical case studies, which means it analyzes discourse more than implementation. There is also a risk that its critique may not fully propose concrete alternatives for practitioners; though the authors signal paths forward, translating their insights into operational policy might be challenging. Compared to other literature on gender and counter‑terrorism — for example, works on women’s roles in jihadist groups or deradicalization programs — this article stands out for interrogating the policy framing itself, rather than the behavioral outcomes.