.

The political importance of identity, particularly gender identity, should not be

underestimated in the study and practice of international relations. There is a range
of ways to conceptualise ‘gender’ , to think about how our gendered bodies come to
have meaning in socio-political situations, and to conceive of the relationship
between sex and gender: Gender issues have broadened and deepened in the
international relations discipline. liberal feminists want the same rights and
opportunities that are available to mento be extended to women also.
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.
eminism 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.
Ann Tickner inspects and 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”.
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

Politicising the everyday, or rather, demanding that the everyday be recognized as

political, is a central priority of feminist IR, exemplified in the work of Cynthia Enloe..
One of the most influential works in feminist IR is Cynthia Enloe's “Bananas, Beaches and
Bases. 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. In the early 1980s, Enloe began asking the questions for which she has
become rightly acknowledged as a key figure in feminist: Making Feminist Sense of
International Politics, Enloe puts her ‘feminist curiosity’ to work,[14] providing the
reader with a series of vignettes that function to complicate easy readings of
everyday situations, from the beaches central to tourist industry to the diplomatic
wives stationed on military bases.
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
All these activities, she argues, constitute international relations, and she concludes
that ‘the personal is international’ This fundamental insight supports much
contemporary feminist IR scholarship, as it seeks to understand just how the
presumed ‘personal’ realm of gendered bodies and the relationships between them
is inextricably intertwined with the ‘international’ realm of high politics
In view of these argument it is very right to say