How has it come to this - this lack of any vocabulary about what feminist ambition ought to look like? I was particularly struck because I have just spent some weeks exploring the revelatory advances made by US feminist researchers in the last twenty years in the field of international relations (IR). These advances emerged in the wake of the 1970's, precisely at the point when equal rights activists realised that women could be brought from the periphery into the centre of leadership and decision-making without changing either or the relationship between them, and when they began to investigate how discrimination against women comes to be enmeshed in the economic, cultural and social structures of society.
Read more on similar themes from 50:50
Resolution
1325
Nobel Women's Initiative
Anne Marie Goetz
on Pathways of Women's Empowerment
Women
and WarOne fruit of this research was the discovery of a process
of ‘gender dichotomisation' which throughout many centuries of western culture
has pitted such social and cultural characteristics associated with
masculinity, as power, autonomy,
rationality, activity and public against
their opposite, subordinated feminine characteristics - weakness, dependency/connection, emotionality, passivity, and private. In each case doubt is cast on
the second term of the binary opposition for being lesser or a threat. The
ascription of gender involves a highly complex system of mutually reinforcing
stereotypes, supported by a whole range of social institutions and practises
that in turn have profound effects on people's bodies and minds.
J.Ann Tickner's pioneering critique, predicated on gender dichotomisation and inequality, of the six principles of power politics in Hans Morgenthau's Politics Among Nations (1948), is generally regarded as a founding moment in the development of a critical perspective in IR studies. Published in 1988, her exploration began with a query about why women had been conspicuous only by their absence in the worlds of diplomacy and military and foreign policy-making. But Tickner concentrated her critique not on the interests and activities of these men in high office, but on a particular ideal of the male warrior espoused by western political theory from the Greeks to Machiavelli and Hobbes - ‘hegemonic masculinity' - which in its evolving versions continues to this day to be used to understand the behaviour of nation states.
The ‘hegemonic masculine' model privileges certain types of behaviours over others. Since its birth in early modern Europe, the western state system has constructed its encounters with ‘uncivilised' or dangerous others in ways that have justified expansion, conquest and a state of military preparedness. Characteristics such as self-help, autonomy, and power maximising that are prescribed by international relations ‘realists' as security-enhancing behaviour have come straight from the ‘hegemonic masculine' palette. But so too does the instrumentally competitive behaviour of states which results in power balancing, echoed in equilibrium theory and the market behaviour of rational economic man. States do indeed behave in these ways, Tickner pointed out, but they also engage in cooperation. Privileging a ‘masculinist' model delegitimates other ways of behaving as less ‘realistic'.
In the same period of state formation, another process of inclusion and exclusion, again characterised by ‘hegemonic masculinity', took place internally. This time, the construction of internal boundaries between the ‘public‘ and ‘private' realms of society excluded women from citizenship rights. Civil and political rights applied to the public sphere. What went on inside families was deemed to be a private matter beyond the reach of law. While men were socialised to identify with constructions of masculinity that emphasise autonomy, male superiority, fraternity, strength, public protector roles and ultimately the bearing of arms, ‘women, on the other hand, were taught to defer, as wives and daughters, to the protection and stronger will of men, while providing the private emotional, economic and social support systems for men's war activities.'
Tickner tracked ‘hegemonic masculinity' and its opposite, ‘subordinated femininities', through history to show how partial the realist account was, and to highlight the extent to which mainstream IR thinking relied on gender dichotomies, stereotypes and practises, while at the same time being completely oblivious to gender. If this was one of the last social sciences to be touched by a gender analysis, Tickner argued, it was because the field was ‘so thoroughly masculinized that the workings of these hierarchical gender relations [were] hidden.'
Not surprisingly, a vocabulary that propounded the defence at all costs of state sovereignty from foreign threat, flourished in the Cold War period. Neo-realists striving to build a truly detached, instrumental ‘science ‘of International Relations, borrowed methodologies from the natural sciences, statistics, and, particularly in national security studies, game theory. This privileged scientific objectivity, emotional distance and instrumentality over more feminine conceptions such as interdependence and power as mutual enablement.
But as the Cold War gave way to the rising importance of global interdependence, non-state actors, and cultural controversies over religious and ethnic identities, the relevance of the state as a rational actor with a unitary ‘national interest' has come increasingly under scrutiny. A broad debate mobilising constructivists, world order and critical theorists and postmodernists began to challenge the national security core of mainstream IR thinking.
Gender analysts argued that possible solutions to new threats - the recognition of the need for understanding of the ‘Other', dialogue and cooperation - were at odds with the power politics prescriptions of traditional international relations theory. What had been presented as a rational pursuit of interests in an objective reality, in fact rested on a historically and socially-constructed, gender-specific notion of autonomous agency and ‘power over'. This, they thought, was in danger of legitimising and sustaining anarchy in the international order as a self-fulfilling prophecy. ‘Gender dichotomisation' had moreover been deployed not only to denigrate femininity, but also ‘foreigners', ‘minorities' and various ‘subordinated masculinities'. They began to notice the ways that inequalities of race, sexuality and class compounded gender inequality. And to ask what the field of IR would look like were this not the case.
Later this month | How do we dismantle the institution of war?
Comments
"Not surprisingly, a vocabulary that propounded the defence at all costs of state sovereignty from foreign threat, flourished in the Cold War period. Neo-realists striving to build a truly detached, instrumental ‘science ‘of International Relations, borrowed methodologies from the natural sciences, statistics, and, particularly in national security studies, game theory."
Remember, those realists were building on an even more rational, hyper-scientific "zero-sum" system of international relations of the post-Crimea, pre-1914 period. The U.S./NATO strategy that evolved post-1949, was much more cooperative and positive than earlier systems going back to 1648 and beyond. Cold War neo-realists are not the real "bad guys," to find them go back to Tallyrand, etc.
This does not take away from the above article, indeed it makes the differences between it and "traditional international relations" even more striking.
I think that this is portraying the female role in international affairs in a traditional format of the characteristics of female stereotype. Women can kill and destroy and their political behaviour can be that of the same statesmen who bring war and dictatorships, it is just that men will collectively disempower such a woman unless they are in a democratic situation where they do not act collectively as males.
I would argue with this notion:
"The ‘hegemonic masculine' model privileges certain types of behaviours over others. Since its birth in early modern Europe, the western state system has constructed its encounters with ‘uncivilised' or dangerous others in ways that have justified expansion, conquest and a state of military preparedness."
The 'other' societies outside Europe practised exactly the same agenda, in the formation of tribal groups and still do today. What holds back feminism is trying to differentiate what a human being does when it has extremely powerful ability to force its will. Thus a female sociopath/narcissist is far more intimidating than a male who has adopted a passive political role.
The issue is, is the genetic make up of our species reliant upon providing the 'hunter/killer DNA' and the 'DNA for nurturing'. In both cases these two areas of the psyche are available to most average human beings (pyscopaths excluded of course!). When we have no food and starve the singular minded self preservation may win the day, whereas in times of collective work and harvest, such as agriculture, then the collective is more beneficial. One did not occur in our species without the other. And they are equally accessible to women and men, not a bias trait of our gender .
Thus the issue of whether in a democracy we can adopt the reappraisal of the worth of women is based on economic aggression amongst the society. Women, from a very very young age are encouraged to be collaborative, and males encouraged to be singular in purpose, the bias is emphasised in different cultures: compare Polynesians and African tribal groups.
Putting this all aside women work around the male dominant and tend to find whatever improvement that they can achieve - thus the Asian woman aligns her political identity with being Asian and Asian males, rather than promote a unity of thought with other women or other races and the so on. This is the case for all the tribal DNA boundaries so works for Chinese and European and African etc.
Most women feel slighted if the male acts singularly where they have offered collboration and support, but ultimately this is because women have to combat intensive social training to be the second class citizen in their tribal or democratic society - they are indoctrinated to be subservient.
It isn't feminism's missed chances. The only time women had opportunities was during the war, where male employers were obliged to reevaluate womens' worth/work. Despite clear indications that women workers were viable to the economy, they ignored this and emphasised the womeninthehome role, or sex object. Men didnt want women in the workplace, and they didnt want them to compete for work/management etc.
Without the WW2 in Europe then most European women would be in the same position as most indian/african/asian (with the exception of PRC) women are today, domicile slaves.
As has been seen, in history, if there is a choice between utilising women's intelligence and skills and importing migrant trained labour (predominantly male) then the male political machine in any country all over the world will now import. The UK male govt took the option of importing males, as did Germany and other Western European nations. It is not a coincidence that this was linked with civil rights and race politics, both of which were led by black males in the USA.
The UK Labour Party Govt is a clear indication of a 12 year anti-women agenda, in that its Equalities Act and its proposed targets and quotas leader Trevor Phillips admits that evidence of 'race' groups, such as Asians and Chinese, when competing with indigenous and immigrant "white" children have surpassed them in terms of accessing professions and managerial work, whereas womens progression has stood still (which is in fact "gone backwards) as the emphasis of mainly males politicians is to singularly empower themselves. Race first, in the UK, is actually male first in a global economic market. Males own the wealth globally and so the agenda shifted to the male money - and business raced after that in terms of its manufacturing. The last twenty years have been the rise of the chauvanist misogynistic male. Even UK laws, originally most beneficial for women, have been altered to adapt to a male need to, for example, accept multiple wives.
Suddenly in possibley their last two years of power the Labour Govt launches a heavy handed approach on employers to employ quotas, whilst not changing the emphasis of race (that being male) then race (that being female) then gender. 52% of the population and growing - indicated that even where displacements of numbers existed the role of the woman is still to be kept in low paid employment, which is highly insecure and has little security of pension and perks.
If one considers that the vast number of people benefitting from race politics and quotas are migrants entering the UK in the last twenty years, then it further displaces the notion that the women in society were being promoted 'equally' as new migrant worker males. Most of the mature women in the working classes have been barred from any promotion or from gaining more professional status, not by a "glass ceiling" but by the male preference to employ males, politically support males, and to promote males. Even where young males are far behind young women in schools, in the world of work, they are embraced and championed. Where women are allowed to compete on a level playing field they can and do excel.
This is not an "opportunity" missed as there never was any opportunity offered. Women tend to align with whichever entity or group that has empowered them and then act singularly to be as male as the next male. Harriet Harman, Margaret Thatcher and Cherie Blair indicative of such women, whose rights and access to powers are considered less as an electorate's call for empowerment of women and more of empowering their individual political careers.
As Trevor Phillips said in the Equalities Review 2007 that the "equality" targets for race will be met in the next 20 years whereas for age, gender and disability "not in our lifetime". This is despite the fact that the BME groups entering the UK began in large numbers in the 1980s (1960s was very small numbers) and that in twenty years and through the Labour Govt's benign neglect of young women, the opportunity for them has been replaced by the desire for the Govt to appease (mainly) violent male led rioting and interracial disputes.
The fear of the violent collective male group - aligning on race or skin colour, or non indigenous English immigrants - is more frightening for a politician than another woman reaching for her pen and soap box.
Stalin was much the same in his attitude to the women who would work for Mother Russia. Until women begin to bomb, maime and kill men, then you can look forward to more years of increased legalisation of child marriages (usually female childs to very old males), legalised slavery ( young women married for dowries or citizenship), legalised and loosening of sex industry venues and the attached spinoff of sex human trafficking brothels. Until women begin to be like the USA black politcal voices of protest and shout at all police/politicians as sexist or claim that all actions by a sexist state are oppressive unless women are given specifically preferential treatment to work and to positions of management or power then nothing will change "in our lifetime". This being the lesson we can gather from Margaret Thatcher's years and that of Harriet Harman. However in a world now dominated by sexist oppressive males, in politics and in industry, it is highly unlikely even such protests will have any effect at all, as they have not halted the rise in "honour killings"and wife beatings.
It's women politicians, particularly the non-BME ones, that have let women down, year in and year out.
Most middle of the road, middle income women, don't want to bother, and tend, when careers or salaries are restricted to them, return to the role of motherhood/homemaker. Waiting for a political female-first movement that isnt going to come, in a reactionary world that is importing and encouraging more attrocities against women world wide. Stone the rape victim, bomb the woman who wants to be in parliament, isn't just the Taliban/Somali Islamic identity - it is the tribal male identity, when threatened with its dominance being challenged. "Drown the witch"
It would be great if the UK Govt just gave women the top up on our tax that allows us to study and train more whilst providing for the many other barriers that are held up against us.
Instead it has disempowered more women by forcing them economically down holes of dead end jobs. Ironically the jobs that allegedly the migrant workers 'only will do' because the UK population didn't want to do them are now held (and have always been held) by women.
Women work in care, cleaning, menial admin, shops and retail. Men of all races and class and age are in local and national govt, film and media, banking and finance and energy. Women Ministers do not employ women as the main govt is made up of men, but black women MPs will employ more black women. Non-black women doing the same would be seen as racist by the CEHR, which is of course, aimed at promoting males, BME, in the forefront. Black women politicians are seen as role models. Women politicians are not seen as women role models as they tend to dissociate themselves with women, except of women from BME groups who have greater political clout/mileage with CEHR/other BME trading states. And as most politicians are now lawyers from a middle to upper income there is a hugely significant number of women that are underrepresented in terms of their poverty and working class status.
Everyone is supposed to applaud the "success" of a BME millionaire businessman. Ironically this success can be achieved by supplying very poor standards of pay and employing women in areas of high economic deprivation, for example elderly care homes.
Or the success of a BME management and professional tier, and when it comes to women, once again, women who are BME are seen as being unfortunate to be behind their male counterparts to access work. The relationship of their sexist social/religious/national group is known but easily dismissed as a resolvable if the wider UK job market employed the women. There is no proof that giving sexist and female oppressive women, roles of power empowers women in general. In fact in some cultures it enhances caste/class definition and encourages subjegation of working class/lower class women into roles of servitude. Giving sexist and female oppressive men has only increased the economic power that they exert on ALL women in the UK govt under changes in legislation, that undermines all women.
Yet the issue of whether it is their own sexist male oppressive social groups that hold them further back is not truly discussed, because it would "anger" BME males/politician, so the differential of why employers are not employing as many BME women is dubbed as institutional racism. This govt will improve the BME women representation in govt and workplaces but it does not ask them to champion women, or to champion women who oppose sexism/misogyny/snobbery and caste values.
Nor has there been any real comparative of how the rise of the male chauvanist and sexism is a form of brainwashing and mental cruelty that depresses the desire of women to achieve, and undermines their long term confidence. In social groups where academic and professional progress is insisted upon of young women there are significantly larger numbers of women in professions. Attending a rape case a Somali businessman claimed that his daughter would never be raped because he made sure her brother brought her back home at 6pm and she was then not allowed out. She was sixteen. He no doubt is a symbol of the success of BME integration. Trying to discuss that victims of rape were not in any way encouraging the act, and that the victim did not "deserve" the rape because she was out in a local park at 6pm, felt like going back to a time in the UK circa 1970. The thing is that the man will have no woman within his community who would, had they challenged him, been acknowledged, and no woman outside of that group who he "respected". His view of women of Western European behaviour was derogatory.
The issue appears to be that his feelings and his role in society are considered more important than my feelings or that of my children. Where we all may feel silenced on any debate around funding and BME groups, because we will be dubbed and financially penalised as racists - or just penalised as opposition to bme funding streams. The attitude to dismissing educated and progressive women members of society is prevalent, by BME and Non-BME alike. It isnt that women have some gene for diplomacy, in fact it is the entire opposite. When faced with one group ignoring or dismissing your equal right to be valued then, both women and men, ultimately will reach for guns..
Significantly the UK has been surppressing the empowerment of young women who achieve academically by placing their needs and images aside to build on male affirmation first.
Long term oppression, the encouragement of clearly antiwoman legislation, in a UK society that used to be less sexist and less anti-woman, and the real daytoday lack of power for women to penalise sexism and chauvanism by males has created a generation on anti-depressants. Sadly it means that without Govt intervention, women will become the invisible class they are in many parts of the world. Understanding this then one sees why some are so eager to have one moment of affirmation by being a suicide bomber. Lets get more women in the police not more men who are bme/muslim/jewish/christian/aetheist etc. Let's see a woman commander please. Let's see two or more women commanders please.
I would therefore think that women in democracies have the most to
defend, and would make excellent political powers and police officers,
if they can drop the sectarian/male tribal/race/religion directives. Collaborative, obedient, and intelligent.
Let's see the fasttrack for women not for BME/religious/sectarian males fissions created by males trying to attain parity with other males and control each other in organised male dominated groups.
Understandably, the REAL POLITIK of women is that they identify with males under race or class before gender and so propigate more males in positions of increasing power based on race/class/economic security.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/comment/reply/46575
As a Briton having lived in Austria and France during what were essentially my formative years, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Unless you grew up in 1950's Yorkshire, I think you've got it all wrong. Perhaps your stereotyping doesn't stop at the highly strung British governesses, but extends to the free-loving, nymphomaniac Europeans?
With a new generation of Britons has come a new passion for learning about different cultures. I myself know several friends who have chosen to spend their 3rd year at university abroad, and frankly I think they'd rather stay in Madrid or Lyon. Every year we go to the Continent for a huge holiday, to immerse ourselves in the culture and learn, as well as have fun. I've had a seksy French boyfriend...surely a ridiculous feat for a prudish British girl such as myself?
I agree that we Britons have a slightly reserved view, but we're anything but the stuffy Victorians we were a century ago. As for not eating garlic...maybe you should have stuck to Butlins.
---------
evlilik
Post new comment