Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Feminist theory in international relations
Dominant hegemonic masculinity as a social construct
Feminist theory in international relations
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Feminist theory in international relations
Does A Gendered Approach Give Us A Significantly Different Understanding Of International Relations?
By the late 1980s, academic scholars in the field of International Relations began to investigate how gender affected International Relations theory and practice. Gender is significant in International Relations because they are ‘essential to understanding the world ‘we’ live in’ (Young, 2004:75). One must emphasise on the term, ‘we’ (Young, 2004:75) as allusions of a world where men and women live in unison and that they shape the world we live in today together. But in the modern world, international politics is perceived to be ‘a man’s world’ (Tickner, 1992:6). This implication questions the realm of international politics; does the fact that international politics is dominated by men make a difference? In 1952, Simone de Beauvoir understood that the ‘representation of the world, like the world itself, is the work of men; they describe it from their own point of view, which they confused with the absolute truth’ (Bart, 1998). This further emphasises that that a gendered approach could give us a significantly different understanding of International Relations. The world we live in today has been the ‘work of men’ and as a result, one may question how different the world would be, had it been the work of women. Beauvoir claims have been the ‘major underlying assumption’ (Bart, 1998) in the emergence of feminist theory since the 1970s. This type of feminist theory deals with questions of knowledge, mentioned as feminist epistemology. It is thought that the feminist perspective on the scope of International Relations are founded on ontologies and epistemologies that are dissimilar from the traditional discipline (Tickner, 1997)...
... middle of paper ...
...w of International Studies, 22(4), pp. 405-429.
7. Linklater, A., 2004. Dominant and Destructive Masculinities. International Affairs, 80(01), pp. 89-97.
8. Steans, J., 1998. Gender in International Relations: An Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.
9. Tannen, D., 1990. You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow.
10. Tickner, J. A., 1992. Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security, New York: Columbia University Press.
11. Tickner, J. A., 1997. You just don’t understand: troubled engagements between feminists and IR theorists. International Studies Quarterly, 41(4), pp. 611-632.
12. Young, G., 2004. Feminist International Relations: A Contradiction in Terms? Or Why Women and Gender Are Essential To Understanding The World 'We' Live In. International Affairs, 80(1), pp. 75-87.
Edkins, Jenny, and Maja Zehfuss. Global Politics: A New Introduction. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2009. Print.
On September 5, 1995, Hillary Clinton delivered an influential speech at The Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. Clinton expresses general concern over escalating violence toward women, in other word’s gendercide. “Gendercide refers to the systematic elimination of a specific gender group, normally female. It’s most common in India, China, and other regions in Southeast Asia” (GirlsKind Foundation). Crimes, such as bride trafficking, infanticide, abandonment, and dowry related murder; often take place within private households, going unnoticed and not even acknowledged. “Tragically, women are most often the ones whose human rights are violated. Even now, in the late 20th century, the rape of women continues to be used as an instrument of armed conflict Women and children make up a large majority of the world’s refugees” (Clinton 3). By addressing her speech in Beijing, where gendercide is prevalent, Hillary expressed her objective effectively not just the United Nations, but to audiences across the world. Clinton effectively delivered her speech by portraying her purpose for women to achieve equality and better opportunities, with ethical appeals, emotional appeals, and logical appeals.
In the introduction of Deborah Tannen’s “Conversation Style: Talking on the Job”, she compares and contrasts the ways men and women communicate. This reminds me of what I tell people that are struggling in their relationships. Women and men express themselves differently. Women think, but men act. If you can’t wrap your head around this, being in a relationship with anyone is going to be hard. Yet, this is such a basic way of looking at this issue. Not only are the genders vastly different, but each person relates to the world around them in a certain way. He or she also needs to be related to in a specific way. Looking at personalities and personal histories can give a better look at the way we communicate with each other. Tannen examines
McCann, C., & Kim, S. (2013). Feminist theory reader, (3d ed.). Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
Lugones, Maria C. and Elizabeth V. Spelman. Have We Got a Theory for You! Feminist Theory, Cultural Imperialism and the Demand for “The Woman’s Voice.” Women and Values: Readings in Recent Feminist Philosophy. Edited by Marilyn Pearsall. Wadsworth Publishing Company: California. 1986. 19-31.
Tannen believes that men and women are cross cultural when it comes to conversation. While analyzing basic conversation, Tannen primarily focuses on married couples and marriage, in general. Whether implied or not, Tannen fails to deliver enough credible scientific research to inform the audience of her opinions and viewpoints. Tannen begins her argument explaining a personal experience with a married couple which she invited to a group meeting that she held. Tannen uses this dependable experience to confirm that American men talk more than women in public, and usually talk less at home. Tannen uses the word “crystallizes”, to display the accuracy of her research through this personal discovery. Tannen states, “This episode crystallizes the irony that although American men tend to talk more than women in public situations, they often talk less at home” (239). Tannen presents research as if a female is the only gender to, “crave communication” in a relationship, giving no background information to support this theory. Deborah Tannen gives numerous personal accounts of issues married couples seem to have, but hardly giving actual scientific
This journal article, “Cultural Relativist and Feminist Critiques of International Human Rights - Friends or Foes?” by Oonagh Reitman seeks to rouse discussion about the similarities between two critiques of universal human rights: cultural relativists and feminists, despite the antagonistic position both groups tend to take against each other. In the beginning, he lays out the basis of critique of international human rights by each camp. Cultural relativists argue that the universal human rights which are earned simply ‘by virtue of being human’ (Donnelly in Reitman 1997, 100) are insensitive to the diversity of culture. Feminists, on the other hand, criticize that universal human rights guarantee only men’s rights and that ‘gender equality and freedom from discrimination for women is given a low priority in the international arena’ (Reitman 1997, 100).
Academic discourse is the means by which new and old theories may be applied to a topic in order to reach a better understanding or challenge a notion raised within the field. It is through discussing and analyzing these concepts that individual voices may be applied to an academic community, allowing for a wider lens of thought to be picked up and further discussed. Grewal participates in this discourse in her article “'Women's Rights as Human Rights': Feminist Practices, Global Feminism, and Human Rights Regimes in Transnationality”. This paper shall analyze and discuss how Grewal applies previous theoretical concepts related to feminist discourse in order to offer a Transnationalist Feminist critique to the Global Feminist notion of Women's Rights as Human Rights.
This journal article, “Cultural Relativist and Feminist Critiques of International Human Rights - Friends or Foes?” by Oonagh Reitman seeks to rouse discussion about the similarities between two critiques of universal human rights: cultural relativists and feminists, despite the antagonistic position both groups tend to take against each other. In the beginning, he lays out the basis of critique of international human rights by each camp. Cultural relativists argue that the universal human rights which are earned simply ‘by virtue of being human’ (Donnelly in Reitman 1997, 100) are insensitive to the diversity of culture. Feminists, on the other hand, criticize that universal human rights guarantee only men’s rights and that ‘gender equality and freedom from discrimination for women is given a low priority in the international arena’ (Reitman 1997, 100).
Kent, J. and Young, J.W. (2013), International Relations Since 1945: A global History. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
...action with others… especially men. This supplies final substantiation of the authors' argument, that women continue to be oppressed by their male-dominated societies. It is a bold undertaking for women to ally and promote a world movement to abandon sexist traditions. Although I have never lived in a third world or non-Westernized country, I have studied the conditions women suffer as "inferior" to men. In National Geographic and various courses I have taken, these terrible conditions are depicted in full color. Gender inequality is a terrible trait of our global society, and unfortunately, a trait that might not be ready to change. In America we see gender bias towards women in voters' unwillingness to elect more females into high office, and while this is not nearly as severe as the rest of the world, it indicates the lingering practice of gender inequality.
Feminism has tackled gender inequality in the workforce, within politics, education and various institutes. Within the 20th century some of these issues faced in western culture have been completely reformed due to certain feminist movements that have encouraged women to fight for equal rights. (Crofton: 2011: 272-273) The first and second waves of feminism have proven to be successful by increasing equal rights between men and women. (Kaplan: 1992: 7) Despite these successes which include allowing there is still the fact of the matter remains that women are still objectified by their gender. ()The generalization of gender roles, have proven to be challenging within the feminist movement, this is often due to the objectification of women in the media. Also as feminism, is an ideology it has various schools of which have conflicting ideas of the ‘empowerment of women’ making it difficult to clarify on what is not acceptable in establishing women’s rights. (Fraser: 2014)
... for granted. Therefore, it is without a doubt that the incorporation of gender would enrich international relations theory. Tickner, in her critique of Morgenthau has attempted to depict the gender-bias prevalent within the field. By building on Morgenthau’s founding principles in political realism and of international politics, Tickner makes an insightful contribution to the field of international relations by challenging pre-existing paradigms. She is open to Morgenthau’s masculine-embedded principles, and does not refute them but ultimately contends that for complete comprehension of international politics, masculine and feminine contributions must be equally represented. Without a feminist perspective, an incomplete picture of international politics is painted. Feminist perspectives improve our analysis, knowledge and understanding of international politics.
Lieberman, Simma. “Differences in Male and Female Communication Styles” Simma Lieberman Associates (undated). Retrieved February 25, 2010<
This essay will aim to discuss the relationship between Western Feminisms and International Feminisms as explored by various non-Western Feminists. It will aim to investigate the origins of this 'relationship ', the complexities/complications within it, evaluate how effective both paradigms are in the third wave and ultimately what is still needed to be done to create a transnational, intersectional feminist movement irrespective of the backgrounds of all women.