Feminism Has Nothing to Tell Us About the Reality of War, Conflict and Hard, Cold Facts

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

International politics is a vast field; it entails many concepts such as wars, revolutions, global gender inequalities, demands for global human rights, as well as international trade. In order to understand international politics, the focus is usually turned to international relations theory (Griffiths, O’Callaghan & Roach 2008).

For some duration, the international arena has been majorly controlled by many-centered theories that have attempted to explain global politics. However, this phenomenon changed from the end of 1980s, and at the beginning of 1990s, with the advent of feminism as a theory of international relations.

Women became conscious of their role in the global arena. This essay discusses the validity of the statement as to whether feminism has anything to state about the reality of war, conflict and hard, cold facts.

Griffiths, O’Callaghan and Roach (2008) state that feminism studies women from a perspective of being subjects of knowledge, but not mere objects; although feminism was studied in other social sciences, the function of gender in the international relations has been practically and theoretically sidelined.

In the contemporary study of the discipline, several feminist thinkers have stated their political consideration from gender-blind position, and have been biased towards favoring male gander in the society. Over the last two decades, feminism has cropped up as a major concept in the international relations (Sullivan 2002). The main idea of this feminism drive was to confront the basic biases of the discipline.

The move aim was to emphasize the ways where women were separated from the analysis of the country, international political and international economic situation and global security. The beginnings of internal relations feminism were associated with a more general ferment in the field, often referred to as ‘third debate’ (Dunne, Kurki & Smith 2007).

Early feminists challenged the field of the international relationships to examine the level of the reorientation and the level of the understanding of the international politics in case gender were a major category for analysis and synthesis and women’s experiences were part of the matter.

The feminism entered the international relations right at the time when the feminist theory was considered as the one deserving attention in the society. Considering the reasons for the emerging of the feminist theory, the problem of uneven and imbalanced relationships between men and women within the concept of the historical social movement is basic one (Elshtain 1995).

Therefore, it may be stated that the main idea of the feminist theory in the modern society is to comprehend the current existing social order. Unfairness and tyranny may be considered as the main issues of transformation of the social opinion and its direction at feminism theory (Ackerly, Sterm & True 2006).

There are many different approaches to feminism as different social schools considered it and believed them to be as liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, psychoanalytic, standpoint, post-colonial and postmodern. Feminism in international relationships may also be considered within these theoretical traditions.

Searching for literature devoted to the problems of feminism, many sources may be considered within liberal points of view, however, looking at the situation in general, making the focus on foreign policy, considering public opinion and analyzing various international relationships from the point of view of the feminism, this movement managed to classify themselves as post-liberals.

Additionally, many women who take par in the international relationships are sure that hey may be considered at the international arena and should be added to the theoretical frameworks (Dunne, Kurki & Smith 2007). Gender is considered as one of the categories for analysis in this case.

However, the differences which exist between women themselves may cause the division between two groups or labels, post-modern or post-colonial approaches. The impact of these approaches on women is various as well.

There is the problem that many women have focus on the issues and problems in the international relation which bother only female part of the mankind. On the one hand, it is important to protect women from rape, trafficking, prostitution, domestic service and too complicated homework.

On the other hand, feminists focus only on the aspects they are interested in and it prevents the representatives of this movement to view the general picture and to stress the priorities which may be absolutely different from what feminists consider. At the same time, the importance of the feminists is that they managed to show the life of simple individuals from different angles.

Feminists focused their attention not on the society and mankind as a whole, but on separate groups of people and on individuals at the margins of world politics. This diversity of feminist thought should not be considered as the means for the research and analysis in the nature of international relations (Tickner 1992).

Being committed to ‘celebration of diversity’ (Sylvester 2002, p. 125), feminists in the international relationships have managed to follow different approaches in their research. Working in this direction, feminist movement challenges the ‘disciplining’ (Sylvester 2002, p. 68) effects of the discipline.

At the same time, many representatives of the feminism would vigorously resist such division of the assistance they implement. Instead of identifying the main idea of feminism or developing a set of the beliefs the movement is directed at, it is more important and constructive to show the practical importance and the validity of application of the feminist theories into life (Sylvester 2002).

The novelty of the feminism movement and the approach in general has lead to the situation that debates between International Relations feminists have been subdued even though most of the female representatives had absolutely different thoughts and ideas. The self-criticism between different ideas is reduced to minimum and cannot impact the general position of each of the opinions.

This may have been contributed by the relative newness of the approach (Sullivan 2002). Therefore, one of the main ideas of feminists in the international relationships is to make sure that they are heard. Having their principles and ides, they want to create the situation that their approaches and considerations are implemented into life.

The shift of focus from women related gender issues to gender in general, took place not only in the literature, but also in the policies that have been geared towards development. However, this move was not without its critics. Sylvester (2002) argues there are some situations when the ‘mainstreaming’ of gender that begun to adopt the term.

In addition, this has created a sort of differences between the intentions of feminists aimed at focusing on hierarchical and unequal relations in the society, and how those intentions were really implemented in the society. In reality, the situation was used for minimizing the political and contradicting character of relationships between women and men in the society (Reus-Smit & Snidal 2008).

Jabri & O’Gorman (1999) hold that development of the literature sources devoted to women and to the development of the feminism show some noteworthy trends in feminist international relationships.

The focus on both sides of gender, therefore, has allowed feminist international relations reconsider the hierarchical structures of imbalance between women and men, the same reasons also allowed the system to consider the women’s subordination.

It I impossible to contradict the fact that women are mostly placed on different levels depending of various factors, such as their trace, class, nationality and geographic setting, at the same time, many women have a definite similarity, the location at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale in all societies (Enloe 1983).

For many international relationships feminist theorists, the location of women to the liberal literature on the international economy is problematic as it does not bring out the power structures that are supposed to improve the women standing on the international stage, but it instead covers these structures. This put women at disadvantaged position (Steans 2006).

Having examined the feminism theory, does feminism then offers solutions to the reality of war, conflict and hard, cold facts? To answer this query, the relationship between conflict and feminism will be explored. The relation between masculinity and war has been the main idea for feminist research.

While the manliness of war cannot be denied as the fact, militaries must toil to convert men into soldiers, to teach them and to prepare them to fight. It is important to remember that the same behavior in the direction of women is considered as something unnatural and the behavior in such a way is considered as not the ‘womanly’ (Tickner 1992).

There is one more image of a soldier which offers self sacrifice in order to protect women, children and the vulnerable groups of people in the society. The belief that young males fight to defend themselves, has been a significant driving force for the recruitment of military forces (Risse & Simmons 2002).

There were times when women were invisible for military services, however, the acceptance of women in the military services in some specific countries make this issue more problematic. Thus, men are unable to ignore women as a fact in the military services.

The opportunity and the desire of women to take part in the military services, to participate in the military operations and their presence at the war are the reasons which may place women at the same level with men at the international arena.

Even though military remains a male affair, the presence of women there has changed it. Additionally, public opinion should be considered. Looking at the situation in the Gulf War of 1991 where women died in war, people were really disturbed with the situation and this fact should not be contradicted.

Therefore, the presence of women at the war puts them in the situation where they on the one hand, they are motivated by the liberal principle of equality, and at the other hand they are women and they are to be protected. The protection of women and their position as warriors seems incompatible. The presence of women at war is considered differently by various directions in feminism.

Liberal feminists believe that equality should be present at everything and they are sure that women at war are exactly what they need to make sure that feminism is flourishing. However, many radical feminists believe that women should reject fighting in men’s wars.

In fact, certain radical feminists claimed that women have a special purpose, they are to bring peace to the world society, therefore, the presence of a woman in the army should have only the peaceful purposes, without wars (Elshtain 1995).

Women are fighting for the same rights and attitude as to men. It is important to understand that the presence in the military service and the participation in the war make them equal. At the same time it shows that men are unable to lead wars individually.

The presence of women at the war also points at the inability to have a piece. The peaceful development in the international relationships becomes more complicated affair as even women aimed and carrying piece at the society are war directed and want to take part in the military services (Goldstein 2003).

However, there are still those women who are aimed at carrying peace in the society. These women want to show their care and maternity feelings. The importance of these women at the international arena is that they encourage others for negotiations. Thus, these women give hope to others and it is really important. Performing such function, women place themselves different to men.

However, it does not mean that this difference is negative. Women are different from men and trying to show their similarity and equality they are more distinguished and may be considered as unique (Reus-Smit & Snidal 2008).

Considering the example of the women’s behavior when their peaceful nature served to the settling of the conflicts, the elimination of the nuclear conflict between the powers during the Cold War may serve as a good example as well as the Women’s Strike for peace in the United States in the early 1960s (Sylvester 2002).

Defended personal right as mothers women are able to impact the situation in the whole society as it is difficult to imagine the situation when government supports the course to support for nuclear containment (Enloe 1983).

There is an opinion that peacefully directed women and warlike men lead to antagonisms that threaten the validity of feminist projects (Enloe 2000). Sullivan (2002) states that even though peaceful direction of women may impact some decisions, it is unable to change existing gender situation.

This allows men to dominate in politics. Still, the gender differences are omitted when meaning support for war (Jabri & O’Gorman 1999). Despite the rise of feminism in the milieu of international relations, there is still a key disparity between academics of international relations in both genders (Goldstein 2003).

In conclusion, it should be stated that feminism has much to say about the reality the reality of war, conflict and hard, cold facts. It has been considered that men are more directed at war while women are aimed at peaceful consideration of the situation, still, the desire to remain equal, the feminism movement and culture make the priorities to change.

Reference List

Ackerly B, Sterm M, & True J. 2006. Feminist methodologies for international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge Unversity Press.

Dunne T, Kurki M, & Smith S. 2007. International relations theories: discipline and diversity. New York: Oxford University Press.

Elshtain JB.1995. Women and war. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Enloe C. 1983. Does khaki become you? The militarisation of women’s lives. Michigan: South End Press.

Enloe C. 2000. Making feminist sense of international politics. California: California Press.

Goldstein J. 2003. War and gender: how gender shapes the war system and vice versa. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Griffiths, M, O’Callaghan T, & Roach S. 2008. International relations: the key concepts. London: Taylor and Francis.

Jabri V, & O’Gorman E. 1999. Women, culture, and international relations. London: Lynne Rienner.

Reus-Smit C, & Snidal D. 2008. The Oxford handbok of international relations. New York: Oxford University Press.

Risse T, & Simmons B. 2002. Handbook of international relations. London: SAGE.

Steans J. 2006. Gender and international relations: issues, debates and future directions. New York: Polity.

Sullivan M. 2002. Theories of international relations: transition vs. persistence. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sylvester C. 2002. Feminist international relations: an unfinished journey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tickner A. 1992. Gender in international relations: feminist perspectives on achieving global security. Columbia: Columbia University Press.

Click Here To Order Now!

Feminism Has Nothing to Tell Us About the Reality of War, Conflict and Hard, Cold Facts

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)