本文首先簡介一些女性主義流派對戰爭與和平之觀點及主張，包括有條件義戰者、批判性別差異結構中陽性特質與軍國主義者、質疑和平本體論為陽性思維者、母性和平者、本質主義者以及自由主義者等，並討論女性主義與積極和平之關係。隨後逐一檢討這些女性主義流派主張之優點與缺點，說明討論戰爭起源勢必要討論和平如何可能。在探討過程中指出數個重要爭議，例如本質主義與非本質主義之爭論、平等與差異之爭執，以及絕對和平與有條件義戰之爭辯。順帶說明戰爭對女性產生的正負面影響，最後對本文的討論內容做進一步的評論。女性主義有關戰爭與和平之論述，呈現論點多元並存，且有時各自矛盾甚至自我抵銷。但所有女性主義者皆批判主流戰爭研究所自滿之「武裝和平」，也批評主流和平研究所專注之「以控制衝突為典範」的研究議程。大多數女性主義者皆批判陽性陰性特質二元對立所建構之軍事主義，及各種強者宰制弱者之結構暴力。

This paper intends to do the following jobs: (1) introducing various
kinds of feminist perspectives on war and peace; (2) evaluating each
perspective's strength and weakness and making some comparison among
one another; (3) suggesting further research on some important issues.
These critical issues including some important debates as follows:
(1) self vs other; (2) masculinity vs femininity; (3) essentialism vs nonessentialism;(4) war vs conditional just war; (5) conditional peace vs
absolute peace and (6) equality vs difference.We could be self and be other's other; therefore our attitude towards other could be various depending on other's attitude towards us. How does masculinity eventually lead to militarism and war? Is femininity actually related to peace? Can non-essentialists can really avoid the trap of essentialism? Does just war have truly objective standards? Conditional just war cannot be determined objectively. Is there a so-called absolute peace?What is the balance points between equality and defference?