BLOG POST

 

In the reading "Gender In International Relations" by J. Ann Tickner, The author starts off by telling us about her research in Third World development, North-South relations and peace studies. Gradually, she expands to a more broader perspective of how there's a difference between her male and female students in studying an introductory course on international relations and how she is the only woman on professional panels in her field and has written this book as an attempt to make the discipline of international relations more relevant to women's lives. From here, we pick up the main problem or the issue the author is addressing which is why people assign a more positivist value to masculine characteristics and a more negative value to stereotypically feminine characteristics.

 

Feminism in IR is not about the biological differences between men and women. It is one of the many different ways to approach politics other than the usual traits of masculinity. Where masculinity is defined by positivist traits like rationality, courage, toughness, power, independence and even physical strength. People usually degrade feminism by associating it with stereotypical views like being too emotional or being too weak for example. Frequently, manliness has also been associated with violence and the use of force, a type of behavior that, when conducted in the international arena, has been valorized and applauded in the name of defending one's country. This celebration of male power, particularly the glorification of the male warrior, produces more of a gender dichotomy than exists in reality. If a woman is a head of a particular state and has 'masculine' traits in her political thinking and decision making she is not a feminist leader. The feminist theory sure assumes that the current political system and global relations are problematic, and it has evidences to prove that masculinity the key issue, as it explains how 'ego' driven decisions have turned out to be quite disastrous. A woman is not allowed to introduce her way of thinking to prevail in foreign policy unless she possesses masculine traits like strength and aggression. Women are mostly absent from most accounts of global politics and international history. Feminist theory, views the world from the perspective of the disadvantaged and takes greater account of economic inequality, ecological dangers and human rights in defining security than conventional international relation theory, which emphasizes military issues. In the fundamentals of politics, international relations , a term called 'masculinity' has been sown and it is next to impossible now to think about international relations and politics from a feminine point of view. To dig a little deeper into the issue, we associate politics and International relations with traits like toughness or aggression and we believe that such traits are fit for international relations so much that it is extremely hard for us to even imagine a soft hearted, peace loving, kind, full of emotions (traits which are mostly related to feminism) head of state.  

 

Feminists claim that women are oppressed in a multiplicity of ways that depend on culture, class and race as well as on gender. Rosemary Tong suggests that we can categorize various contemporary feminist theories according to the ways in which they view causes of women's oppression. While Marxist feminists believe that capitalism is the source of women's oppression, radical feminists claim that women are oppressed by the system of patriarchy that has existed under almost all modes of production. Patriarchy is institutionalized through legal and economic, as well as social and cultural institutions. Some radical feminists argue that the low value assigned to the feminine characteristics also contributes to the women's oppression. Feminists in the

psychoanalytic tradition look for the source of women's oppression deep in the psyche, in gender relationships into which we are socialized from birth. Social feminists tried to

 

 

weave these various approaches together into some kind of a comprehensive explanation of women's oppression. Socialist feminists claim that women's position in society is determined by both the structures of production in the economy and by structures of reproduction in the household, structured that are reinforced by the early socialization of children into gender roles. Women's unequal status in all these structures must be eliminated for full equality to be achieved. As Sarah Brown argues, a feminist theory of international relations is an act of political commitment to understanding the world from the perspective of the socially subjugated. "There is the need to identify the as yet unspecified relation between the construction of power and the construction of gender in international relations." 30 Acknowledging, as most feminist theories do, that these hierarchies are socially constructed, also allows us to envisage conditions necessary for their transcendence.

 

The text is quite straightforward and bold in it's views on feminism with conformation to International Relations, which shows and provides support in the evidences and strengths of the texts such as the author's account of being a female in the field of International Relations and her personal happenings on the said issue, also claims of influential people such as Joan Scott who characterize gender as "a constitutive element of social relationships based on perceived differences between the sexes, and a primary way of signifying relationships of power or be it E. H. Carr who claimed that it was the devastating events of World War 1 that motivated the founding of the discipline of international relations. Even the mention of early modern Western political theorists such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Rousseau gives an adequate amount of proof and a base for the author's arguments.

 

A possible counterargument to the views of the author would be that R. W. Connell associates that hegemonic masculinity are also found in some women. The example of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher would be relevant here; her "macho" qualities during the Falklands/Malvinas war of 1982 reinforced her legitimacy as prime minister and increased her popularity with the British electorate.

 

The problems and the arguments in the said paper are important for us to make the discipline of International Relations more relevant to women's lives, and to simultaneously give the audience a more inclusive approach to the way we think about international politics. To further learn about the gender hierarchies that have contributed to the perpetuation of global insecurities, and all those concerned with International Affairs (men and women alike) should also be concerned with understanding and overcoming their effects.

ABHIMANYU DAYMA