The burgeoning literature on gender issues in IR theory is something worth studying as it adds a whole new dimension to the distribution and dynamics of power. Ann Tickner, like many other feminists, addresses the academic apathy towards women and views feminism in IR theory as the cultivation of a new perspective and lens through which the world should be viewed.
Joan Walter Scott's very famous piece is relevant here because she questions the very construction of the word 'History" as being 'his'-story rather that 'her'-story. Come to think of it, Scott's argument and concern about history being predominantly the story of men is something people take for granted but what submitting to 'his'-story really does is that it obscures the truth absolutely. Interestingly enough, the reason history was male dominated is because history is usually dictated by the victors, and either way the victors of any war or event were men - an idea that Tickner feels should be reversed. Why is it that the power of women is reduced to the domestic sphere, a duty which is disregarded by many at the end of the day. Is it perhaps because "the diplomat, the soldier and the civil servants" are all personified by men - Why?
The idea that 'women need protection' manifests itself in the justification given for both war atrocities, and Ann Tickner very succinctly suggests that we are "socialized into believing that war and politics are spheres of activity with which men have a special affinity and that their voices in describing and prescribing for this world and therefore likely to be more authentic." Well, if politics and war are all spheres of activity dominated by men, is it safe to ascribe all the ill-will occurring in the world to men as well? Why is it that when a rape incident occurs, the victim (obviously being the woman) is held more than partially accountable? Question is, do women really need protection and can they really be protected given the unwarranted rate of war atrocities and rape? Instead of being represented by men, 'a woman's voice" in the political sphere can perhaps alleviate the ill-will in the world.
To simplify things perhaps it would be necessary to understand the difference between the biological truths and socially constructed gender roles. The roles ascribed to the genders are a product of socialization but the biological line between gender is not obscure at all; it is in fact very well defined which will always leave the objective of achieving gender equality a contested one. More importantly, the roots for this "hegemonic masculinity" endorsed by the system needs to be traced. Some suggest that perhaps it was the hunter gatherer societies that marked the delegation of 'roles' by the division of labor; however, although hunter gatherers were considered to be very egalitarian in nature, it is of no doubt that the definitions given to the roles of the men and women at that time have been reinforced in a more extreme manner today.
Joan Walter Scott's very famous piece is relevant here because she questions the very construction of the word 'History" as being 'his'-story rather that 'her'-story. Come to think of it, Scott's argument and concern about history being predominantly the story of men is something people take for granted but what submitting to 'his'-story really does is that it obscures the truth absolutely. Interestingly enough, the reason history was male dominated is because history is usually dictated by the victors, and either way the victors of any war or event were men - an idea that Tickner feels should be reversed. Why is it that the power of women is reduced to the domestic sphere, a duty which is disregarded by many at the end of the day. Is it perhaps because "the diplomat, the soldier and the civil servants" are all personified by men - Why?
The idea that 'women need protection' manifests itself in the justification given for both war atrocities, and Ann Tickner very succinctly suggests that we are "socialized into believing that war and politics are spheres of activity with which men have a special affinity and that their voices in describing and prescribing for this world and therefore likely to be more authentic." Well, if politics and war are all spheres of activity dominated by men, is it safe to ascribe all the ill-will occurring in the world to men as well? Why is it that when a rape incident occurs, the victim (obviously being the woman) is held more than partially accountable? Question is, do women really need protection and can they really be protected given the unwarranted rate of war atrocities and rape? Instead of being represented by men, 'a woman's voice" in the political sphere can perhaps alleviate the ill-will in the world.
To simplify things perhaps it would be necessary to understand the difference between the biological truths and socially constructed gender roles. The roles ascribed to the genders are a product of socialization but the biological line between gender is not obscure at all; it is in fact very well defined which will always leave the objective of achieving gender equality a contested one. More importantly, the roots for this "hegemonic masculinity" endorsed by the system needs to be traced. Some suggest that perhaps it was the hunter gatherer societies that marked the delegation of 'roles' by the division of labor; however, although hunter gatherers were considered to be very egalitarian in nature, it is of no doubt that the definitions given to the roles of the men and women at that time have been reinforced in a more extreme manner today.
I like how you came up with an interesting title that clearly shows that your entire argument is going to highlight the issue of feminism. And you wrote an interesting piece. Good work!
ReplyDeleteGood post and yes, a female perspective is important to understanding politics, especially with regards to issues related to war. However, I will note that rape - especially as a tool of war - is not exclusively committed against women. Men are also raped in war. For example, see the many atrocities committed against Hindu men in Bangladesh during 1971. Also some women soldiers have raped men during war. For example, see how US female soldiers behaved towards Iraqi detainees at the Abu Graib prison.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree with Laila's point :)