Tickner raises some valid points about the exclusion of
women from the international relations field and the harmful effects of many
policies on them. She emphasizes a bottom up approach which examines how women
have played an important role in IR and are increasingly affected by conflicts
and wars. For example, prostitution, trafficking and rape are all consequences
of ground wars. Tickner also aims to explore how the structure of international
relations actually leads to the subjugation of women.
I particularly liked her argument on challenging the myth of
protection. It is interesting how wars are fought to protect women and children,
the most vulnerable section of society, but it is ultimately they who suffer
the most. The violence against women and children during the Vietnam War
particularly outraged many across USA which ultimately led to a rise in
resentment against President Johnson’s policies. However, if mistreatment of
women and children is a valid concern, why is that we do not protest against
wars like the War on Terror on the basis that many innocent women and children
are being raped and killed?
I agree with Tickner when she says that while feminist
theory does not reveal everything about global politics, it does shed light on
stories of people who are marginalized, thus providing us with a new perspective
and a new world. I feel that it is important that feminists continue their
discourse on the role of women in international politics and how they are being
subjugated. To me, it seems that the process is slow and sometimes, even
stagnant. For instance, when talking about on - going conflicts in the world
such as the Yemen conflict or the Israel – Palestine issue, how many of us
really stop to think about the consequences of these conflicts on women?
Nevertheless, as a social constructivist would argue, it is important to
continue talking about such issues which will ultimately lead to norm
emergence, then norm cascadence and finally and hopefully, norm acceptance.
No comments:
Post a Comment