Kimberly Hutchings: Masculinity and War - Essay Example

Beauvoir’s perspectives were largely adopted throughout the second and third wave feminist movements. Still, later movements sought more overt methods of addressing oppression. Largely what emerged during the third wave feminist movement then was an effort to not merely overturn oppressive Western dialogues, but to increasingly confront the patriarchal paradigms that had afflicted many nations globally. Ultimately, by pushing for change in the political structures of various nations, feminists intended to create the understanding that would foster the interests of women, as well as bring equality to these international societies.

Cultural perception about masculinity has promoted factors that undermine social gains in relation to gender equality. A feminists’ conference held in China created a window of change towards societal perceptions of women’s participation in nearly every sector of social development. One recognizes that while China may exhibit strong tendencies towards patriarchal traditions in comparison to many Western regions, their approach to gender relations greatly mirrors similar tendencies throughout the globe.

For instance, many Middle Eastern states continue to be viewed as implementing overly restrictive approaches towards women and instituting a culture of institutional oppression. For these reasons the version of gender equality introduced in this Beijing conference is significant in it has lifted gender marginalisation across the globe. One of the important considerations that have emerged from similar discussions surrounding the feminist dialectic is how feminist operating within a contemporary paradigm should approach notions of a post-modern masculinity.

One such deconstructive approach has considered the long-standing tradition of interlinking war and masculine intensity. Feminists such as Kimberly Hutchings argue that we should resist understanding masculinity as a causal explanation of war (Hutchings, 2007:392). This research argues that masculinity promotes the marginalisation of women in every facet of the society. In doing so it supports the views of Kimberly Hutchings that we should resist understanding masculinity as a causal explanation of war, specifically as such explanations contribute both to an oppressive social narrative and also provided a ready explanation for conflict.

This essay proceeds with a deconstructive approach to masculinity. It considers genders as a socially constructed archetype and notes that masculinity is inherent in this social construction. The underlining recognition is that ‘feminine’ gender constructions function just as well in leadership positions as ‘masculine’ constructions. Rather, traditional and theoretical linkages between masculinity and war are merely apologetic and that a radical structural reimaging of ‘femininity’ in leadership is appropriate for international relations.

Analysis Oppressive Gender Stereotypes In recognizing the oppressive gender dialectic inherent in the figuration of ‘masculinity as an apology for war’ it is necessary to examine foundational perspectives on gender stereotypes. Cultural perceptions on gender define the role of females and males in society. These perceptions have defined the place of a woman in the society. Feminists believe that the cultural inclination promoted