Feminism In International Relations

Yes, International Relations would operate differently. Looking into a political perspective, women are more or less governed with the principle of feminism. Feminism is described as a movement advocating the right of women and of their social, political and economic equality with men. Feminism views the personal experience of women and men through gender identity, gender roles and gender stratification are all rooted in the operation of society.

Apart from the two main theories of realism and liberalism, the feminist theory brings new perspectives to the international relations table. If majority of head of states were women ,there will be differences in international relations. Women’s totality differs from that of men. Behaviours and attitudes

Of course, one could question whether these values are biologically ingrained, or whether society has constructed these values as the expected manner in which we are supposed to behave. (Cook 1991) By examining the behaviour of women who have held important leadership roles, it may be possible to assert that those who succeed in leadership display traditionally masculine characteristics, and therefore would allow us to dismiss the hypothesis. In fact, the militaristic actions of Thatcher, Meir and Indira Ghandi in recent years would suggest that the explanation of peaceful female rulers is not true at all. (Nye 2012) It must be remembered that even if men ceased to hold power positions, and therefore the opportunity for perceived masculine action of warmongering was removed, the key catalysts of conflict would remain. Racial tension, resource shortages and religious clashes are leading causes of violent conflict in recent years, and the removal of men from power would not solve these issues. It remains that within society there will be social groups that are more economically endowed than others, and this, alongside with the varieties in culture and value systems, means that there will always be cause for conflict from a ‘bottom-up’ angle, even if a more conciliatory

This relationship is further supported through the observation of a strong correlation between the world’s most peaceful nations, and those which report the highest levels of sexual equality. Although arguably a tenuous link to make, and by no means directly causal, this does imply that the relationship between gender and war is very complex. (Pinker 2011) In the USA, it has been observed that higher levels of education reduces the disposition of women towards militarisation, whilst polls have revealed that women are generally no less opposed to war than men, provided there is a legitimate and justifiable reason for the conflict. This move away from abstract to concrete observations would suggest that the differences in reaction to conflict cannot be entirely attributed to gender, but instead is largely contextually driven. Observations by Shapiro and Mahajan that women are far less likely than men to support increases in military spending would also suggest that women are less inclined to conflict than men, or at the very least more willing to employ alternative methods of dispute resolution. (Shapiro and Mahajan 1986) Although not necessarily pacifistic, this does imply a different leadership style would become evident if women dominated power positions. An increased focus on communication and reconciliation over individualism,