The Rise of the Feminist Movement - Essay Example

The rise of the feminist movement in the last half of the century brought about transformations and challenges on our concepts of the role of women in every aspect of our social, cultural and political lives. Terms such as gender equality and gender neutrality started to become household expressions. These ideologies and terminologies resulted to diverse modifications on the way we view gender and equality. Laws, statutes, politics, culture and even the economy have been transformed not just to accommodate or appease feminists and women but also to bring equitability to our existing structures and systems. Feminism and their movement for equal treatment and gender equality, in some ways, succeeded in their various objectives most especially in making their struggles known. In the past few decades, debates on the link between feminism and international relations have ensued as the feminists contend that international relations has failed to embrace gender neutrality in both its orthodox and mainstream theories. Thus, the last couple of decades were said to be the start of invasion of feminism on the core of international relations. Ann Tickner, one of the leading advocates of the feminist critique in international relations asserts that international politics is purely man's domain.1 She states that only men are given the privilege to get involved in warfare and adds that the masculine dominion not only encompasses international politics but also includes diplomacy and military service.2 In contrast, women had always been, according to Tickner, refused to be embraced in diplomacy or the military as she further observes that women in international politics are restricted to areas such as international political economy, North-South issues and distributive justice related issues. The study of gender neutrality under this field is significant as Sarah Brown suggests that the study of international relations involves the 'identification of and explanation of social stratification and of inequality' as configured in the global relations level.3 In the light of this controversy, this paper will attempt to answer the gravity of feminist assertions or if gender-neutral theories exist in the area of international relations and why the answer to this is significant to the discipline as a whole. One of the major feminist critiques of international relations (IR) claims that most of the theories put forward by IR do not support reality and has always been a dominion of the males. Sarah Brown observes that the assumption that women need to be included or considered in the disciplines - a liberal-feminist concern, only implies that women were not really there in the first place.4 International relations is mum about women. This only means that subject matter would not exclude women in the field if it were gender neutral. The absence of women in the theories of the discipline is said to be 'hegemonic'5 as international relations failed to put forth gender related theories in which women are 'brought into the discipline'.6 Hence, advocates of this view, proposed to embrace women in the discipline.7 In order to understand what these critiques put forward, it is also significant to comprehend the arguments that feminism in the field of IR is putting forth. It is said that the most prevailing assumption we can glean about the world of politics and international relations is that it is natural and neutral. This assertion refers to the roles of males and females with regards their gender. However, the notion of gender, its universal definition and implications must first be understood. Gender mainly refers to the identity of females and males as they are conceived in certain cultures. These identities imply socio-cultural traits assigned to women and men instead of the biologically defined distinction between the sexes. Sandra Whitworth states that gender does not imply the sex of either women or men but to the notion bestowed on their differences. Thus gender is a 'socially constructed'8 definition of the distinction between the two genders and is therefore disparate from sex, which has biological implications.9 For instance, women who often exhibit obstinacy and determination are highly valued and often bestowed 'masculine' attributes. In addition, they are said to be more preferable to those who do not exhibit the similar qualities10 as we regard these attributes with more admiration than the traits assigned to females. Whitworth clarifies that gender continues to pervade political institutions as the definitions attached to it continue to be upheld, disputed and illustrated in the practices and struggles of individuals in the organizations they are engaged in. Hence, what the feminist movement is aiming for in the area of International Relations is to expose and bring into inquiry gendered-replete suppositions, which, for the advocates, inundate every single theory of the discipline. These objectives involve gender-analysis that endeavours to include women in international politics so as to modify international relations theories and practices for the creation of gender-neutral postulations. Hence, it is significant to assess prevailing theories and assumptions under the discipline of international relations and evaluate if these portray gender neutrality. The assertions of the feminist movement must also be properly evaluated in the light of the claim that not one of these theories embrace gender neutral ideas. One of the theories that suffer constant attacks from the liberal feminist critiques and proponents of equality is the realism theory, which states that the main actors for international relations are the states. These are deemed to be rational actors whose conduct is ascertained by the composition of international anarchy. States struggle to gain power and pursue self-vested national interests. In order for the states to achieve their goals, diplomacy must be utilised and more significantly, military force should be effected. This theory faces criticisms as it brings forth a 'masculinised' concept of the state.11 Steans argues that this state- centred view links international relations to world politics by illustrating that gender is in turn incriminated in the foundation of national identity in which countries are compelled to determine who will be tallied as a citizen and who is not.12 This is a significant point to consider because according to Steans, the existence of nations or 'identities' can be aptly characterized by the State and gender or can be a tool to exclude individuals based on their gender. The danger in this view is that the foundation of national identity will result to 'the institutionalization of gender difference'.13 In addition, according to Elshtain realism 'exaggerates certain features of the human condition' and excludes or demotes other entities.14 Some liberal feminist hardliners, for instance, support the Hobbesian view that perceives politics as a 'battleground'15- an extension of war that advocates the idea that woman must 'fight dirty'.16 Thus, feminists get involved in 'tough talks' and discusses topics that include 'sex-war and shock troops' or encourage other women to 'wear uniforms and 'carry guns for a living.' These hardliners also advocate the call for women to 'prepare for combat' as this is 'the only way to end their 'colonisation'. 17 For Elshtain, this new breed of equal opportunity proponents or 'integrationist feminist' lose their critical ascendancy as they focus instead on reinforcing militarisation as a prevalent ideology and diffuse the concept that the military is very significant in the overall order of society. This seems to imply that women can only attain equal treatment under the international relations discipline if they are able to gain gender-equal status under the military. Thus, Elshtain asserts that the objectives of the feminists fail to challenge the Western-centric male dominance as the hard-line feminists put forth a 'male-dominant ideal' - the 'dirty fighter' or the citizen warrior' under the guise of feminism.18 Similarly, the liberal school of thought in international relations has been under assault and disparagement from the proponents of feminism. For instance, liberal feminists utilise the principles of human rights to elevate the status of women in world politics and international organizations such as the United Nations - institutions already deemed very liberal in nature. Feminists have questioned the apparent exclusion of females as possible actors in global politics and active participants in the academic aspect of international relations. 19 Feminists of liberalist leanings such as Whitworth for instance, observe institutional inequality in global politics as men usually instigate political activities. The objective of these observations is to make way for the opinion of the women and widen the field of study to involve women actors in the area of politics.20 Liberal academicians have sought out the inclusion of women in international relations by chronicling the existing inequality within the system of global politics and international institutions. However, Tomasevski challenges this endeavour claiming that inequality exists on the area of human rights and the rights of women within the boundaries of independent states and this is where the focus on the struggle for gender equality must be directed.21 For Tomasevski, the defiance to confer equal treatment to women more urgently requires action than actions for the arguments brought forth by most liberal feminists. On the other hand, Enloe observes that in the field of international diplomacy, women are involved only with minor importance functioning as diplomats' wives or just plainly doing dirty laundry.22 Cynthia Enloe, well known for her efforts to bring women into the realm of international politics, supports these observations. Enloe similarly observes that women are excluded in the international military activity as their roles speak for themselves. She states that most women got involved in the war with very trivial functions such as wives of diplomats or as prostitutes23 and adds that power pervades all international affiliations because gender has been deliberately controlled to satisfy the whims of power seekers.24 The feminist critiques have likewise observed that the area of security studies under the discipline of international relations is also replete with gender inequality. Ann Ticker argues that the masculine proclivities of national security studies and further contends that the elitist field under the discipline is controlled by men who in turn assess the decisions of other men and thus is solely based on men's views of the world.25 Women's voices have been deliberately excluded from the national security dialogue.26 However, Sarah Brown observes that the liberal feminists' conception of gender inequality is that it is comprised of liberalism's essential values, which include 'justice, liberty and equality.' It aims, most importantly, to apply liberal principles to both women and men.27 Liberalism, in fact, according to Brown, can critique liberal feminism as it contends that rights are bestowed on human beings based on their ability to reason and to argue for women's rights exhibits women's capability to be rational. Thus, liberalism can criticize feminism as 'irrational' since any claims on equality or inequality with regards biological and natural aspects of individuals are rejected and are considered erroneous categorization of persons. Brown, therefore, considers gender inequality as an 'anachronism'.28 In the area of women's development, feminists observe that companies utilize women as cheap labour, which propels development in the Third World.29 Furthermore, the UN programs on women's development, for instance, have particular disadvantages on women as it ineptly focused on the liberal participation of women in the area of development and thereby fail to consider the realities of women's lives. Anne Marie Goetz asserts that many UN programs on women development in the Third World focus upon the mother and child relationship which strengthen the women's reproductive functions, undermines her productivity and in turn, cement the role of men which is to produce or provide for the family - thereby reinforcing the orthodox gender roles and division of labor based on sexual stereotypes.30 Goetz goes on to argue that women have been labelled restrictively, which, consequently, masks their real concerns and endangers their economic future as these erroneous assessments of women present inexact account of their needs. Goetz adds that the emphasis on women as having 'special' needs bars them from mainstream development programs.31 It can be said that the feminist approach on development is a form of a deceptive humanism as it established its policies on the Western-centered understanding of what a woman should be.32 However, Jacquette states that scholars who focused their studies on the consequences of development programs on women discovered mostly beneficial effects. Jacquette adds that industrialization has diminished the social consequences of biological inequality between opposite genders, birth control method bestowed more freedom on women as it ended the cycle of unintentional pregnancy and modernization has enhanced and will continue to enhance mobility33. Thus, the liberal theory under the international relations discipline views women as a part of the total progression of modernization which involves advancement in technology, the economic change from subsistence farming to capital economy and the rise of organizations that increase the necessity for industrial mobility. The distinction seen between men and women resulted from the 'failure of diffusion' and not because of the failure of the international relations model. The discipline perceives modernisation and the organization of development programs as gender-neutral and purposely beneficial to women.34 Jacquette concludes that there is a necessity for 'sex-disaggregated data' - sensitive to 'complementary rather egalitarian roles for women,' in every research done on the consequences of development, either long-term or as the outcome of policy intervention, on populations. Without this information, Jacquette asserts that there will be no means to establish the assertions brought forth by the feminist critique. In addition, the valuable chance to expand our understanding of the intricacy of development may also be overlooked.35 It is also important to note that these feminist movement and policies in the Third World have helped unmasked the real and even hidden difficulties of women in that part of the globe. As the discipline of international relations was able to pinpoint gender inequalities in its objectives to promote human rights under the existing international organizations, as for instance, UNICEF, United Nations Development Fund and the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, just to give a few examples. These and other organizations have helped reveal the inequality women suffer in many aspects of society. Thus, it only illustrates that there exist some gender-neutral theories in international relations. The proponents of feminism and the feminist critiques who assert that international relations are devoid of gender-neutral theory under the aforesaid discipline fail to prove that inequality subsists. Although the theories put forward in international relations fail to mention gender, it does not mean that it refuses to support gender neutrality or gender equality. Some scholars under the discipline observe that what we strive to seek for is what we would find. If one does a close reading of international relations theory with a clear consciousness of gender or sexual difference in mind, he will also find theories replete with connotations with regards gender and inequality. On the contrary, over the last few decades, the field of international relations redirected its focus on the understanding of gender, women most especially, and sought to consider women's cultural differences as well as social and environmental context in which they live. The answer whether gender-neutral theories exist in international relations is important because it strives to highlight 'neutral' and equal treatment of the state in which both genders belong. In addition, the prevailing liberalist thought in international relations considers justice, equality and liberty as its most significant principles. The rise of liberalism under this discipline stands as one of the greatest achievements in global politics as it heralded a more peaceful, equal relationship among states. The international laws that govern countries, for instance, seeks to bind states by 'appealing to the conscience, justice and humanity'36 as exemplified in the United Nations Charter. UN member countries have signed treaties, which compel signatories to abide by its laws on the promotion of human rights, justice and equality. The Charter itself states that it aims to encourage and promote 'respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.'37 BIBLIOGRAPHY A. M. Goetz. 'Feminism and the Limits of the Claim to Know: Contradictions in the Feminist Approach to Women in Development', (Millennium Vol. 17., 1988) Cynthia Enloe, 'Bananas, Beaches and Bases: making feminist sense of international relations,' (1997 Francine D'Amico and Peter R. Beckman, "Introduction," in Women, Gender, and World Politics, (Wesport, Conn.: Bergin and Garvey, 1994.) Hershey, Amos Shartle. The Essentials of International Public Law. New York: The Macmillan company, 1912. J. A. Tickner, 'Hans Morgenthau's principles of political realism: a feminist reinterpretation', (Millennium Vol. 17, 1988 J.B. Elshtain, "Reflections on War and Political Discourse: Realism, Just War, and Feminism in a Nuclear Age." Political Theory Vol. 13, No. 1 (1985): 39-47. J.M Jaquette, "Review: Women and Modernization Theory: A Decade of Feminist Criticism." World Politics Vol. 34, no. 2 (1982): 267-284. Jill Steans, Gender and International Relations: An Introduction, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1998), 41-43. Sandra Whitworth, 'Gender and the Interparadigm Debate', (Millennium Vol. 18., 1989) Sarah Brown, 'Feminism, international theory and international relations', (Millennium Vol. 17., 1988) Tomasevski, Women. See also Joanna Kerr, ed., Ours by Right: Women's Rights as Human Rights. (London: North-South Institute, Zed Books, 1993), p. ix UN Charter Article 1 Read More