J. Ann Tickner's article this week introduced us to the feminist perspective in International Relations and how in academic discourse, especially in International Relations there is a large void because of the lack of feminist scholars in the field. Tickner raises an interesting argument when she claims that it is very doubtful whether a moral and just world can be achieved while there are gender hierarchies in place and it is impossible to break past these circumscribed stereotypes which exist in the field. Through her book, she tries to inculcate a more inclusive approach towards International Politics and make a break through with a more comprehensive and egalitarian approach. A few things stood out in the article and it was easy to make connections as to how there is an exclusion of women in other spheres of life as well, demonstrating how it is not that only politics that has a large degree of discrimination with women being associated with inferior, less 'manly' role.
One point that she mentions is how there is a largely held view point that women played a small role in shaping foreign policy in any country as they are seen as naive, weak and even to a large degree unpatriotic. This is not true and when we look at History, we see that during the Afghanistan- Soviet War, it was the women at the Home Front in the USSR that held massive rallies and protests in order to bring back the Soviet soldiers- husbands and sons- from Afghanistan as they saw it as a prolonged and useless war. They put pressure on Gorbachev to bring back the soldiers, and the women's views were a large reason as to why the men were called back. Is this not women contributing and shaping the way that foreign policy is shaped? Have they not contributed in the livelihood of the country?
Perhaps another point of contention that Tickner mentions as a widely held belief is the fact that the women are socialized into believing that war and power politics are spheres of activity with which men are associated with. In the systematic study of War, it has been noted time and time again that even though the War Front is a pivotal part of carrying out such conflicts, without a Home Front and production there is little that the soldiers can do. At the Home Front women play a mammoth role as they not only contribute in making food, but during war, especially the Second World War characters such as Rossie the Rivetor were sensationalized with women gaining a prominent role in the economic sphere of life. They contribute in shaping the way that war and conflict pans out and their part is largely excluded or mentioned in little or no detail.
What is interesting is that this discrimination is not limited to just International Relations! If we look at academic discourse in other fields such as Anthropology, we see that because of the absence of women writers and researchers, the words themselves portray women as a docile submissive race. In Emily Martins excellent article named 'The Egg and the Sperm' she talks about how in literature and academic discourse, the egg is seem as inferior, something that is immobile and penetrated or 'attacked' by the sperm. The satirical article is perhaps one of the most refreshing and truthful pieces I've read where women are seen as someone who is a damsel in distress, who needs to be saved and is unable to do anything herself. The male, with his 'macho' and 'prince' like quality has all the power. This though is in line with R.W. Connell's 'hegemonic' masculinity, where there are stereotypical gender images imbeded in the minds of people, and in all honesty are impossible to break. We see in all spheres, whether it is politics, where the Orientalist view sees the Eastern Women as suppressed and in need of saving, associating negative associations with women or whether it is something as scientific as Biology where the sperm is more superior and the egg docile, these images exist everywhere.
This reading was eye opening and incorporates a plethora of ideas and view points about how women are forgotten in International Relations. There are certain stereotypes associated with women that are cemented with such academic discourse, and it is only because of writers such as Tickner, that these problems can be brought to the fore and exposed and a solution be reached.
One point that she mentions is how there is a largely held view point that women played a small role in shaping foreign policy in any country as they are seen as naive, weak and even to a large degree unpatriotic. This is not true and when we look at History, we see that during the Afghanistan- Soviet War, it was the women at the Home Front in the USSR that held massive rallies and protests in order to bring back the Soviet soldiers- husbands and sons- from Afghanistan as they saw it as a prolonged and useless war. They put pressure on Gorbachev to bring back the soldiers, and the women's views were a large reason as to why the men were called back. Is this not women contributing and shaping the way that foreign policy is shaped? Have they not contributed in the livelihood of the country?
Perhaps another point of contention that Tickner mentions as a widely held belief is the fact that the women are socialized into believing that war and power politics are spheres of activity with which men are associated with. In the systematic study of War, it has been noted time and time again that even though the War Front is a pivotal part of carrying out such conflicts, without a Home Front and production there is little that the soldiers can do. At the Home Front women play a mammoth role as they not only contribute in making food, but during war, especially the Second World War characters such as Rossie the Rivetor were sensationalized with women gaining a prominent role in the economic sphere of life. They contribute in shaping the way that war and conflict pans out and their part is largely excluded or mentioned in little or no detail.
What is interesting is that this discrimination is not limited to just International Relations! If we look at academic discourse in other fields such as Anthropology, we see that because of the absence of women writers and researchers, the words themselves portray women as a docile submissive race. In Emily Martins excellent article named 'The Egg and the Sperm' she talks about how in literature and academic discourse, the egg is seem as inferior, something that is immobile and penetrated or 'attacked' by the sperm. The satirical article is perhaps one of the most refreshing and truthful pieces I've read where women are seen as someone who is a damsel in distress, who needs to be saved and is unable to do anything herself. The male, with his 'macho' and 'prince' like quality has all the power. This though is in line with R.W. Connell's 'hegemonic' masculinity, where there are stereotypical gender images imbeded in the minds of people, and in all honesty are impossible to break. We see in all spheres, whether it is politics, where the Orientalist view sees the Eastern Women as suppressed and in need of saving, associating negative associations with women or whether it is something as scientific as Biology where the sperm is more superior and the egg docile, these images exist everywhere.
This reading was eye opening and incorporates a plethora of ideas and view points about how women are forgotten in International Relations. There are certain stereotypes associated with women that are cemented with such academic discourse, and it is only because of writers such as Tickner, that these problems can be brought to the fore and exposed and a solution be reached.
Great discussion. I would love to learn more about the pressure that Gorbachev faced from women wanting their husbands back - did you consult any outside sources?
ReplyDeleteI liked your discussion on the egg and the sperm and notice how language plays a role in masculinity/femininity. Language is also a tool of power and can shape/alter our perspectives.
And I agree that this issue is prominent in the broader scope of the social sciences and humanities. More feminist perspectives are badly needed in the field!