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.
McCann, C., & Kim, S. (2013). Feminist theory reader, (3d ed.). Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
The article by Laura McEnaney titled Gender Analysis and Foreign Relations is an interesting article focused on a relatively new type of analysis that offers another angle in the world of policymaking. The diplomatic historians who use gender analysis use it in addition to the customary methodologies of the historian to enhance the historian’s studies. Gender analysis has inspired new investigations in the history of men and women and diplomacy, giving way to a new type of understanding of power in a historical context; however gender analysis “enters diplomatic history only through the aegis of culture.”
Lugones, María C. and Elizabeth V. Spelman (1983) “Have We Got a Theory for You! Feminist Theory, Cultural Imperialism and the Demand for ‘The Woman’s Voice’.” Women’s Studies International Forum, 6 (6): 573-581..
Deborah Tannen has achieved scholarly and public praise for her conclusions about how women and men differ in conversational styles. You Just Don’t Understand[6] clarifies stylistic differences in how the two sexes communicate with each other.
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).
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).
Tannen, Deborah. You Just Don't Understand : Women And Men In Conversation / Deborah Tannen. n.p.: New York : Morrow, c1990., 1990. Valdosta State University GIL Catalog. Web. 3 Mar. 2014.
The contribution of the feminist standpoint in IR theory definitely sparks discussion and debate bringing forth new perspectives which demand to be heard and considered from the more ‘orthodox’ IR theories, previously privileged assumptions and preconceived ideas. This grand entry for the feminists was towards the denouement of the Cold War in the 1980’s , Kirkpatrick; influential US ambassador of the UN during that period was noted to have said that she felt like a “mouse in a man’s world”. Is this still the case with women worldwide and particularly in the West? Tickner’s groundbreaking work set the foundation and key to early feminist IR. Whilst simultaneously interrogating the core issues in mainstream IR, particularly in peace and security, contingent on feminist bases for gendered grasp of issues that have defined it. In this essay we will firstly try to identify and comment on the emergence of feminism within IR in the 80’s. Secondly, we will pin-point and analyze which contributions were of the greatest importance, predominantly via Tickner and Keohane. Finally we will look at the impact and importance of the different types of feminist theories and whether or not they have achieved at enriching our understanding of IR theory.
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.
Kent, J. and Young, J.W. (2013), International Relations Since 1945: A global History. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
In her essay, “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses,” Chandra Talpade Mohanty explores the simplified construction of the “third-world woman” in hegemonic feminist discourses. In contrast, in her essay “US Third-World Feminism: The Theory and Method of Oppositional Consciousness in the Postmodern World,” Chela Sandoval specifically analyzes “US third-world feminism” and how it is the model for not only oppositional political activity, but also consciousness in the United States and how this has not been recognized by hegemonic “western” feminist discourses (). While Mohanty and Sandoval are analyzing and critiquing gender and gender politics, Mohanty is specifically focused on the simplified portrayal in “western” feminist discourses of “third world women” as victims, and Sandoval examines an oppositional mode of consciousness, which she defines as “differential consciousness” and how it is employed by “US third world feminism.” Both authors deconstruct gendered bodies of knowledge with an emphasis on the deconstruction of power, race, and colonialism. It is the deconstruction of these gendered bodies of knowledge that this essay will specifically analyze, as well as the depiction of what each author argues is missing from present discourses on gender, and finally, what they believe would be a better way to analyze gender discourses in a postmodern world. (maybe add another similar point, how western feminists are trying to portray “third-world women” and their motivation behind this act)
According to our main source of Gender in Cross Cultural Perspective the book along with lecture gave us many examples of barriers and preconditioned notions of man’s work or woman’s work and how these barriers and outlines have been broken and rewritten over the course of time and throughout the years.
Feminist perspectives began to enter the discipline of international relations since the end of the Cold War, gaining increasing recognition. However, the voice of women is still scarce within the discipline, especially in the US and the West where mainstream international relations theories such as neorealism and neoliberalism still dominate. This essay will postulate that Tickner’s aim is not to make classical realism into a straw man, but instead that her critique of Morgenthau is apt because what she strives to do is to offer a feminist perspective to the field of IR to make it more accessible to women practitioners and scholars. Moreover, Tickner’s main contention throughout is that she does not view Morgenthau’s political realism as incorrect and invalid through the way in which he depicts the international system, but believes that he only offers a partial account of international politics because its assumptions of human nature favours the male perspective. A female perspective is required to make this account whole. To do so, this essay will discuss why international politics is male-dominated. Furthermore, it will analyse how Tickner critiques Morgenthau’s political realism and discuss briefly why she chooses to use Morgenthau to highlight the relative lack of feminist approaches within the discipline. This essay will come to the conclusion that Tickner’s critique of Morgenthau is useful and apt because it promotes the incorporation of feminist approaches, allowing for multiple perspectives especially within the dominant fields of international relations and consequently, allows us to have a better understanding of the international system. Her critique hardly invalidates or defeats Morgenthau’s teachings but merely ...
Tannen, D. (2007). You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York, NY: Harper.