gender issues have broadened and deepened in the international relations discipline.

Feminism as an academic
discipline was an off shoot of the
feminist
movement of the 1960s and
1970s a movement dedicated
to
achieving political, social and
economic equality for women.
Feminism as an academic
discipline was an off shoot of the
feminist
movement of the 1960s and
1970s a movement dedicated
to
achieving political, social and
economic equality for women.
Feminism as an academic
discipline was an off shoot of the
feminist
movement of the 1960s and
1970s a movement dedicated
to
achieving political, social and
economic equality for women.
liberal feminists want the same rights and opportunities that are available to men,
extended to women.

Feminism as an academic discipline was an

off shoot of the feminist
movement of the 1960s and 1970s a
movement dedicated to
achieving political, social and economic
equality for women.
Feminism as an academic
discipline was an off shoot of the
feminist
movement of the 1960s and
1970s a movement dedicated
to
achieving political, social and
economic equality for women.
In 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’ (men and women) live in’.. But in the modern
world, international politics is perceived to be ‘a man’s world’

Lliberal feminists look at the ways in which women are excluded from power and
from playing a full part in political activity. They are instead being restricted to roles
critically important for the functioning of things but which are not usually deemed to
be important for theories of world politics. Fundamentally, liberal feminists want the
same rights and opportunities that are available to men, extended to women.
Tickner’s feminist critique of political realism challenges Morgenthau’ Six Principles of Political
Realism “ his ssumptions about human nature, highlighting the prominence of a masculine
bias.Although she does not think that a holistic or scientific approach to international relations that
is based on principles of human nature is fruitless, but argues that the reliance on a partial
understanding of human nature is a critical flaw in Morgenthau’s work, which is defined by a
masculine worldview. She holds that the IR discipline and the academic study of it make it
unattractive and inhospitable to women.

Ann Tickner evaluates international politics through a feminist lens as a woman

in the world predominately made up of men. She draws our attention to the
underrepresentation of woman in International politics. She looks critically and
constructively over such male theorists as Morgenthau in particular. She begins
by asking why “International politics is a man's world, and why “diplomacy, military
service, and the science of international politics have been largely male domains”: within the upper
tier of international decision making, men have consistently controlled those decisions. Even though
more women are breaking through barriers of entry, they typically do not advance to the highest
levels, and when they do, they find themselves feeling like “a mouse in a man’s world” . For Tickner,
the lack of women advancing through international relations is a result of not only discrimination, but
also “through a process of self-selection which begins with the way in which we are taught about
international relations. In other words, they very framework through which scholars analyze
international politics is structured in a way that precludes women’s success.

Tickner’s largest critique of Morgenthau is his assumption of a “rational (and unemotional) theory of
international politics based on objective laws that have their roots in human nature” (431). Drawing on
the work of Evelyn Fox Keller, Ticker argues that this assumption places Morgenthau squarely against
feminist thought, since “most share the belief that knowledge is socially constructed: She argues that
since it is language that transmits knowledge, the use of language and its claims of objectivity is
questionable.  Objectivity itself is linked with masculinity as being impermeable and absolute; in
contrast, subjectivity is linked with femininity for being irrational and non-scientific. This is because
“women are socialized into a mode of thinking which is contextual and narrative rather than formal
and abstract” (433). Ticker points out that thinking contextually is absolutely essential, For example,
“given that any war between the major powers is likely to be nuclear, increasing security by increasing
power could be suicidal,”

Moreover, in order to create his rational theory of international politics, Morgenthau fashions a theory
of “political man,” who is a “beast completely lacking in moral restraints. In Tickner’s reading of
Morgenthau, politics is an amoral business, since real men cannot live up to abstract universal moral
codes. On the international level, that translates into Morgenthau’s tolerance of Hobbesian
competition for power maximization and survival between states. However, feminist scholars would
reject the distinction between politics and morals. For Tickner, Morgenthau’s reconstruction of human
nature is fundamentally lacking: “one might well ask where the women were in Hobbes’ state of
nature; presumably they must have been involved in reproduction and childrearing, rather than 
warfare, if life was to go on for more than one generation” Additionally, focusing on conflicts within
international relations underplays the role of cooperation and regeneration that have continuously
played a role in sustaining international politics and human life itself

Lastly, Tickner points to a new paradigm of power which is based on cooperation rather than
competition: “when women write about power they stress energy, capacity and potential” Like Hannah
Arendt, who theorized power as a deliberative, collective and cooperative action, Tickner finds that a
feminist reformulation of security studies would fundamentally alter the field, especially “since women
have had less access to the instruments of coercion, women have been more apt to rely on power as
persuasion” . For Tickner, this reformulation would lead to an analysis of security in terms of north-
south instead of east-west and about human security instead of national security, and would even tie
in the environment as a site of mutual cooperation.

Tickner takes a step back from the need for states to assert control and power,
and even challenges the validity of the way that power has been defined.
Alternatively, she looks for international relations to focus on unifying states by
acting morally and strengthening mutuality. In opposition to the provision of
violence for states to get ahead and in a modern world that is changing almost
more rapidly than people can keep up with, taking the feminist route is the
best way for conflict to be peacefully resolved in international politics and to
preserve the peace.
Tickner does not deny the validity of Morgenthau’s work; rather, “adding a feminist perspective to the
epistemology of international relations… is a state through which we must pass if we are to being to
think about constructing an ungendered or human science of international politics which is sensitive
Ann Tickner inspects and
to, but goes beyond, both masculine and feminine perspectives” (
redefines Hans J. Morgenthau’s principles of political realism in a more
feministic way. She summarizes the ideas Morgenthau has contributed to
international politics as they follow along the lines that politics and society are
deeply connected to unchanging human nature. The nature of the “political
man”, in turn, is both righteous and animalistic, especially because states are
not necessarily obligated to endorse and protect morally correct laws. Those
states and individuals who do behave fairly and ethically jeopardize their
power and detrimentally increase their chances of failure because of the
imminent unethical actions of others. Tickner proceeds to assess the validity of
this figure, stating that “Morgenthau’s political man is a social construct based
on partial representation of human nature
Tickner evaluates how the execution of international politics and relations
should be conducted in a much more positive way in comparison to
Morgenthau. National interest should not revolve entirely around obtaining
and maintaining power, at whatever it may cost the state. “Objective" laws are
not so impartial, as they really take on a more masculine approach than
anything considering how much more influenced international politics have
been by men than women. Feminist perspective seeks to find common moral
elements in human aspirations which could become the basis for de-escalating
international conflict and build international community”.

Ann Tickner challenges the way in which international politics have been
carried out masculinely by offering feminism as an alternative to solving issues
in the world more wholesomely. Her evaluation of the misogynistic scope that
political realism in international terms has been examined through,
particularly her criticisms of the principles of Hans J. Morgenthau.
Her evaluation expands the horizons of how much more effectively world
conflict could be resolved by supplementing feministic and maternal strategies
as opposed to those which are pretty much only masculine. Tickner redefines
what power should be and how it should be sought out and obtained. Rather
than pitting states against one another out of fear of losing control and their
respectable stance in the world, Tickner focuses on bringing states together by
searching for common and moral grounds. In a world that is much more
complex and different than the one in which theorists like Morgenthau came
up with their beliefs, letting feminism have its own influence on international
relations and politics will strengthen the peace of the world and resolve
conflict as has not been possible for sometime
One of the most influential works in feminist IR is Cynthia Enloe's “Bananas, Beaches and Bases.”
(1989) • She also critiques global as well as U.S. militarization, specifically the roles women play in
combat. • She argues that the U.S. military model trains men to be the protectors of women and
then produces an environment in which women are the victims of physical violence.
Cynthia Enloe asks the question ‘where are the women?’, encouraging IR scholars
to see the spaces that women inhabit in global politics and demonstrating that
women are essential actors in the international system. She focuses on
deconstructing the distinctions between what is considered international and what is
considered personal, showing how global politics impacts on and is shaped by the
daily activities of men and women – and in turn how these activities rest on gendered
identities. Traditionally, the military and war making have been seen as masculine
endeavours, linked with the idea that men are warriors and protectors, that they are
legitimate armed actors who fight to protect those in need of protection – women,
children and non-fighting men. In practice this has meant that the many ways that
women contribute to conflict and experience conflict have been considered
peripheral, outside the realm of IR’s considerations. For example, the issue of sexual
and gendered violence in conflict has only recently entered the international agenda.