I

pdc

Political Discourse

2395-22292582-2691

Prof. R S Yadav

pdc-2-1-005

RESEARCH ARTICLE

International Politics: A Feminist Perspective

Jain

Vaishali

¹Vaishali Jain, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Kurukshetra University, Kurkshetra

162016

215162

2016

IndianJournals.com

The process of globalization and end of cold war has brought about many changes in the field of International Politics. During cold war the agenda of International politics was dominated by the political issues and conflict between the two major powers U.S.A and U.S.S.R. In fact the history of International relations was mainly concerned with issues of war, hegemony, dominance, territorial expansionism etc. After the end of cold war many new issues emerged in International relations. In the globalized world more attention has been given to economic cooperation among states, socio- economic development, human rights, non- state actors, and non- traditional threats. The meaning of security has also expanded to include human security along with state security. The classical tradition in International relations came under attack from number of fronts and feminist critique of International relations is one of them. Apart from two mainstream theories Realism and liberalism, feminist approach has acquired new space in the realm of International politics. Feminists are not satisfied with the assumption that International politics need to focus only upon political relations of the countries. Though women participate in foreign policy making process, but their number is insignificant. They play the role of nannies, wives of diplomats and are trafficked across international boundaries as sex workers. They have tried to look and study International politics through the lenses of gender. Through this paper an attempt has been made to explain feminist perspective on International politics. In this context an attempt is being made to explain different streams of feminism, their criticism about mainstream theories and core concepts of International Politics. Besides, an assessment about the limitations and contribution of feminist international theory to International politics is also attempted.

Before presenting main ideas of feminist international relations, there is need to define the term gender used by feminist scholars. The term gender, in its current usage refers to the socially constructed men's and women's identities. One's gender does not reflect the biological characteristics, but the cultural specific behaviour of men and women in relation to each other. Feminists’ argument is that role specific distinction between men and women in family, society, culture, religion, law, state is not essence or natural rather it is social construction, it is planted, crafted on and rooted into biological sex through practices. Judith Lorber identifies gender as a process, a part of a stratification system and as a structure. Gender as a process creates social differences that define “woman” and “man”. As a part of stratification system, gender ranks men above women of same race and class. As a structure, gender divides work in the home and in economic production.¹ Similarly, Joan Scott observes that gender in structural sense, is a primary way of signifying a relationship of power. Although gender is frequently seen as belonging in the household and therefore, antithetical to the real business of politics, a reason why it is always seen as irrelevant to IR. It is constructed in the economy and the polity through various institutional structures that have the effect of “naturalizing” and even legalizing, women's inferior status.² The gendering is done from birth constantly and by everyone. Consequently, it has become a social institution through which human beings organize their lives. One way of choosing people for different tasks in the society is on the basis of their abilities, talents, and motivations. On the other hand, they are chosen for their roles on the basis of gender, class which is socially identified. Not only this, gendered norms and expectations are enforced through informal sanctions of gender-inappropriate behavior by peers and by formal punishment or threat of punishment by those who are in authority and their behaviour deviate too far from socially imposed standards for women and men. Feminists define gender, in the symbolic sense, as a set of variable, but socially and culturally constructed characteristics- such as power, autonomy, rationality and public- that are stereotypically associated with masculinity. Their opposites- weakness, dependence, emotion and private- are associated with femininity.³ The term gender, thus, was recognized with early second wave feminist intervention made a distinction between sex and gender. It took gender beyond individual attributes and identities and showed that gender, like social class and racial categories, is imposed on, rather than developed from, individuals. Different feminisms have confronted the gendered social order in different ways.

Before knowing how the feminisms understand international and increasingly globalized world through gender lenses, it is pertinent to know the expansion of feminism in international arena. Feminism emerged as a social movement with goal of bringing equality between woman and man. As an organized movement modern feminism rose in nineteenth century in Europe, America and Japan in response to the great inequalities between the legal status of women and men citizens. However, It is not true that the feminism or the feminist movements are largely of Western origin. In a number of Asian, African and South and Central American countries there have been vital and important struggles for resources and empowerment for girls and women.

The first wave of the feminists during 19th and early 20th centuries fought for equal rights of women and men. The rights which were denied to women of every social class, racial category, ethnicity and religion like the right to vote, to own property, and to inherit capital, to keep earned money etc. Suffrage was the main goal of women's liberation in the first wave of feminism in Western countries, but rights concerning property earnings and higher education- many of which were granted by the end of 19th century gave women a chance of economic independence.

The Second wave of feminist movement began with the publication in France in 1949 of Simone de Beauvoir's, ‘The second Sex’. But the second wave did not take shape as an organized political movement until the late 1960s, when young people were publicly criticizing many aspects of Western society. It came to prominence in a number of western states in the 1970s.Second wave feminists had very different politics. Some of the feminists concentrated on political and economic rights of women like political and economic representation in those areas which were dominated by men. Other feminists were engaged in defending the social rights of women in the society. They worked for the elimination of sexual violence, pornography, prostitution, sexiest depiction of women in media. Third wave feminism, which emerged in 1990’s, is a movement of younger feminists who grew up with feminism. Inheritors of women's studies curricula in school and a much less gender- segregated social, economic and political world, they reject the idea that women are oppressed by men. Rather they include men as feminist activists. The feminism that emerged at this time- multiracial/multiethnic feminism, constructionist, post-modern, by rebelling against conventional deep seated assumptions and value judgments, they force us to look at how we have built and maintain an unequal social order.⁴ This feminism is more concerned with gender inclusive causes, such as peace, the environment, lesbian and transgender rights, than advancing the status of women. To this generation of feminists, women have achieved equality; it is time to rebel socially by using their power.⁵

Fourth wave of feminism, which is contemporary feminism, concerned with the consciousness of oppression along with racism, ageism, classism and sexual orientation through the social networking. The feminists speak in terms of intersectionality, whereby women's suppression can only fully be understood in a context of the marginalization of other groups and genders. Internet has created a “call out” culture in which sexism or misogyny can be “called out” and challenged. The internet has facilitated the creation of a global community of feminists who use the internet both for discussion and activism.⁶

Along with the movement feminism in academics particularly in the field of international relations made its appearance in late 1980s. J.Ann Tickner in her work Gender in international relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security.⁷, has raised many questions: Why are there so few women in my discipline? Why the subject matter of my discipline so distant from woman's lived experiences? Why have woman been conspicuous only by their absence in the worlds of diplomacy, military and foreign policy making? Why so few women chose national and international security studies? Women's continue silence in the discipline led one feminist scholar to conclude that most women are ‘homeless’ as far as the canons of IR knowledge are concerned.⁸ Feminist approaches and feminist politics are the result of personal experiences shared among friends, debates and discussion among feminist scholars. Class teachings, conferences and research for knowing the causes of female subordination contributed in the development of feminist scholarship in international relations. Although there are different streams in feminist theory, yet the most important goal of feminist theory is to explain women's subordination and pervasive gender inequality in different societies and try to seek ways to end it.

There are many different types of feminist theory, which include liberal, Marxist, socialist, post-colonial, radical, post modern, standpoint, and many more. There is considerable overlap amongst these approaches. In constructing their approaches to international relations, feminists draw on a variety of philosophical traditions and literatures outside international relations and political science.

Liberal feminists argue that state is gendered in providing the rights such as voting rights, right to possess property etc. They seek to end this gender inequality by removing legal obstacles i.e by granting equal rights to women. They look at the ways in which women are excluded from power and prevented from playing effective role in politics. They have investigated the problems of refugee women, under representation of women in international organizations, their absence in battlefields, women rights violation like rape in war, trafficking. In order to understand lack of women in high politics Cynthia Enloe posed a question in her book Bananas, Beaches and Bases⁹ ‘Where are the women?’ She suggests that by asking such question their presence and importance in world politics can be realized. She further examined that it was not actually the absence of women in world politics, indeed they played absolutely central roles, either as cheap factory labour, as prostitutes around military bases, or as the wives of diplomats. Such roles of women have never got recognition in international theories.

Marxist/socialist feminists focus on the unequal gendered division of labour in the home and in the workplace and the devaluation of women's work. Carole Pateman argues, in the seventeenth century women began to be deprived of the economic basis for independence by the separation of the workplace from the household and the consolidation of the patriarchal structures of capitalism.¹⁰ Marxist feminism demonstrate that causes of women inequality is capitalism which leads to women's oppression, or in the labour market with its gender discriminations and divisions between public (paid) and private (unpaid) work. Capitalist system is primary oppressor, which offers greater rewards and prestige for paid work in public sphere than for unpaid work in the household. Therefore to bring equality there is need to over through the capitalism. Socialist feminists claim that women's position in society is determined both by structures of production in the economy and by patriarchal structure of society which has been there in society prior to capitalist system. Women's equal status can be attained by eliminating such social structure.

Post- modernist feminists argue that a unified representation of women across class, racial, and cultural lines is impossibility. Just as feminists criticized that existing knowledge is grounded in the experiences of white western males, post-modernists claim that feminists themselves are in danger of essentializing the meaning of woman when they draw exclusively on the experience of white western women. Such an approach runs the additional risk of reproducing the same dualizing distinctions that feminists object to in patriarchal discourse. Post- modernists believe that a multiplicity of women's voices must be heard lest feminism itself become one more hierarchical system of knowledge construction.¹¹ Similarly post- colonial feminists observe that the concerns of western women and the women of rest of world cannot comply. Therefore, women's subordination should be addressed in their own cultural context. They are also critical of Western, privileged academic intellectuals who claim to be able to speak for the oppressed. This is another kind of cultural imperialism.

Standpoint feminism began to identify how the subordination of women, as a particular class by virtue of their sex rather than economic standing possessed a unique perspective or standpoint on world politics as a result of their subordination. Other view of this feminism emphasized that the knowledge, concepts and languge in international relations reflects masculine behavior and experiences and, therefore, this represents one specific gendered viewpoint. Standpoint feminists argue that seeing the world from standpoint of women radically alters one's understanding about the world.

Radical feminists claim that women are oppressed by the system of patriarchy that has existed under almost all modes of production. Patriarchy is institutionalized through legal and economic, as well as social and cultural institutions. Some radical feminists argue that the low value assigned to the feminine characteristics also contribute to women's oppression.

Judith Lorber¹² has put the feminist theories in three categories: Reformist feminisms (liberal, Marxist, Socialist, post-colonial and Asian) that predominated in 1970, Resistance feminisms (radical, lesbian, psychoanalytic, standpoint) emerged in 1980 and Rebellion feminisms (multi-racial/multi-ethnic, social construction, post-modern, third wave), are feminisms of 1990’s.

Gender reform feminisms locate gender inequality in the structure of the gendered social order. Politically their goal is to achieve gender balance, so that women and men are positioned in equal numbers throughout the society, and have equal power, prestige, and economic resources. They want women to be valued as much as men and to be free to live their lives according to their human potential. Gender resistance feminisms claim that that the gender order cannot be made equal through gender balance. By examining the gender order from the perspective of women, they make visible the hidden relationships among organizations (mass media and sports), institutions (religious, legal and scientific), and daily practices that allow men to control women's lives. They call it patriarchy which makes men dominant and women subordinate. Their goal is a social order that values women and women's contribution to social life.

Gender rebellion feminisms focus on multiple sources of inequality-race, ethnicity and class which are reproduced through individual actions and social interactions. To them gender inequality is embedded in social construction and maintenance of gendered social order through doing gender. So their goal is to dismantle the gendered social order.

Thus it can be said that in order to understand feminist work in IR, it is important to note that gender is not determined on the basis of biological sex, but is socially constructed phenomenon.

III

Feminist scholars direct the attention of people to the gendered structure of IR theory. They have focused on the explicitly gendered writings of political philosophers such as Hobbes, Machiavelli and Kant whose works are considered as basic texts of the academics, even the titles of the texts of the various political philosophers is gendered. J. Ann Tickner observes that there are no princesses in Machiavelli's text. Princesses are scarce both in the discipline of international relations and in the realm of international politics.¹³ Most western political theorists clearly stated in their writings that women either are not capable of or should not be encouraged in the attainment of autonomy, rationality. They were not in favour of granting the citizenship rights, education to the women. For example, while Kant viewed the development of rationality as necessary for the formation of moral character, he denied that women are capable of such achievements; he also recommended against the education of women because it would inhibit man's development.¹⁴

The dominating approach to IR known as “realism” which developed in Anglo American academic and policy circles after World War II dedicated to the study of International reality, focusing on ‘what is’ rather ‘what should be’. The central concern of realism has been with issues of war, national security, national interest, power and disassociation with the realm of morality and values from the international politics. Feminists in IR argue that realism, dominated by elite, white male practitioners, is patriarchal discourse that renders women invisible from the high politics of IR. In order to demonstrate how the theory and practice of international relations exhibit a masculine bias Tickner has developed a critique of Morgenthau's six principles of political realism. Her belief is that reformulation of Morgenthau's principles may help in viewing the international politics from other perspective. She demonstrates that ‘Objectivity’ in the theory is associated with masculinity. Objective laws of human nature are based on a partial masculine view of human nature. Human nature is both masculine and feminine. ‘National interest’ is multidimensional and contextually contingent. Therefore, it cannot be defined solely in terms of power. In the contemporary world the national interest demands cooperative rather than zero- sum solutions as a set of interdependent global problems. She denies the validity of the ‘Autonomy of the political’. Since autonomy is associated with masculinity in western culture. Building boundaries around a narrowly defined political realm defines political a way that excludes the concerns and contributions of women. Moreover, ‘Power’ as domination and control privileges masculinity and ignores the possibility of collective empowerment.¹⁵

Feminists claim that women have been absent from the construction of knowledge in the discipline of IR. Throughout most of the history of the modern West, men have been seen as knowers; what has counted as legitimate knowledge, in both the natural and social sciences, has generally been knowledge based on the lives of men in public sphere. The separation of the public and private spheres, reinforced by the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century, has resulted in the legitimation of what are perceived as the ‘rational’ activities (such as politics, economics, and justice) in the former while devaluing the ‘natural’ activities (such as household management, child rearing and care giving) of the latter.¹⁶

Feminist thinkers have sought to subvert some of the most basic elements of classical paradigm. In arguing that women and gender are essential to be considered in field of international relations, feminist have addressed the core concepts and issues of IR such as sovereignty, power, war, peace, militarization, state, security and many more. Key scholars such as Cynthia Enloe focused on core IR issues of war, militarism and security, highlighting the dependence of these concepts on gender structures e.g. dominant forms of the masculine (warrior) subject as protector/conqueror/exploiter of the feminine/feminized objects/other- and thus the fundamental importance of subjecting them to gender analysis.¹⁷ Like Enloe, Tickner has also interrogated the core concepts of IR such as security, foreign policy making and peace. Key concepts in IR are neither natural nor gender neutral: they are derived from a social and political context where masculine hegemony has been institutionalized. The notions of power, sovereignty, autonomy, anarchy, security and the level of analysis typology in International Relations are inseparable from gender division of public and private spheres institutionalized within and across states. These concepts are identified specially with masculinity and men's experiences and knowledge derived from an exclusively male dominated public sphere.¹⁸

Sovereignty is a core concept in IR because it defines the pre- eminent role of states as political actors, and by implication also defines political identity (citizenship) in state centered terms, binding ‘authentic politics exclusively within territorially bound communities’.¹⁹ John Hoffman emphasizes on the reconstruction of the political concept of sovereignty as emancipator, as it is beyond the state’.²⁰ States are an expression of patriarchal power. ‘Empirically states are (mostly) run by men, defended by men and advance the interests of man. Logically, state sovereignty is gendered be its assertion that leadership is monolithic, hierarchical and violent. These principles are all ‘masculinist’ in character since the idea of concentrating power so that the few rule by force over the many is associated with the domination of men’.²¹ Feminists claim that in Hobbes ‘Leviathan’, a man carrying a sword is representation of sovereign authority. International Relations were limited to the relations between kings in 16th and 17th century Europe and States were identified with the sovereign king.

The history of state formation and identity is one of gendered oppression. A state is marked with the centralization of political authority, institutionalization of gender and class exploitation. At least since Aristotle, the codification of man as “master”and woman as “matter” has powerfully naturalized/depoliticized man's exploitation of women, other men and nature.²² This shows that ancient Grecian state was patriarchal in nature based on gendered division of labour within family. Peterson has also questioned the status of state as protector of women. She argues that, in addition to its relegation of sexual violence and its threat to the private domestic realm, the state is implicated in the ways that women become “the objects of masculinist social control not only through direct violence (murder, rape, battering, incest), but also through ideological constructs, such as women's work and the cult of motherhood, that justify structural violence- inadequate health care, sexual harassment, and sex-segregated wages, rights and resources”.²³ Women have always been less identified with the state and its institutions than have men because they have generally been denied to attain the power. Very few women have reached at the helm of high politics, they are discussed not for their qualities and capabilities but they acted like men, for having masculine characteristics.

The concept of state security which was conventionally associated with the boundary and its integrity has undergone a change. The term security is not only concerned in political and military terms but also with the human security (economic and environment). Feminists have re-examined that mainstream concepts of security in IR. They have defined security in multilevel terms. They realized that the mainstream theories have failed to take notice of security issues of women at the time of war, oppressed conditions of existence in relation to men, military occupation, forced prostitution, human trafficking, slavery and other forms of discrimination. As Tickner has explained that whereas conventional security studies has tended to look at causes and consequences of wars from a top-down, or structural perspective; on the other hand feminists have generally taken a bottom up approach, analyzing the impact of war at the micro level.²⁴ Feminists question the non-existence of women in security politics, young males are recruited to fight wars on the basis that women and children are vulnerable groups and they can be given protection only by them. They have pointed that it is their protectors who provide great threats to their security. Feminists are also concerned with the gendered political economy which is responsible for economic insecurity as well as economic exploitation of women in patriarchal society. In her work Gender in International Relations, Tickner has used the term structural violence (the term borrowed from peace research) to designate “the economic and environmental insecurity of individuals whose life expectancy was reduced, not by the direct violence of war but by domestic and international structures of political and economic oppression.”²⁵ Women face lot of problems because of the structure of political economy as their participation is less in decision making process of global capital; the gendered division of labour as well as discounting of work at home. Likewise, environmental security has also become a major concern for the feminists because they realize that women and nature are directly related with each other. Environmental degradation is not gender neutral; women are affected disproportionately by environmental insecurity. Particularly women in developing countries are more exposed than men to indoor pollutants resulting from the use of firewood at the time of cooking.

After discussing the feminist perspective, it can be discerned that goal of feminism is to produce a knowledge that can create awareness in women for their rights and improve their lives. Feminist theories have introduced gender as an analytical tool for understanding the power relations in International Politics and constructing alternative world order. It has provided the other angle of security concerns of the state, as latter's responsibility is not only to defend the boundaries but to secure the other group of society -”Women”, whose contribution is always devalued whether it is in field of defense, politics or economy. Therefore, feminist scholars have challenged the basic concepts of mainstream theories, Realism and Liberal theories of IR. It shifts the study of IR from singular focus on interstate relations in terms of power and interest to that of comprehensive analysis of IR. As a result, most courses on IR theory now take consideration of gender issues or feminist perspective due to the publication of several excellent texts and writings by feminist IR scholars. Whole issues of many Journals are related with subjects of women, gender and feminism in IR. In 1999 a new Journal entitled The International Feminist Journal of Politics was established to promote dialogue among scholars of feminism, politics and international relations.

In contemporary times, a significant impact of feminist thinking and feminist movements on women throughout the world is manifest. As the international feminist movement began to gain impetus during 1970’s, the General Assembly declared 1975 as International Women's year and organized the first world conference on women, at Mexico City. Subsequently, the years from 1976 to 1985 was declared as UN Decade for women. In the earlier years of this decade women in North took the lead but in later years the women from south began to organize. This led to the establishment of a network of Sothern women known as Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN). It is not only engaged in political advocacy using feminist knowledge, but also publishes analysis of the impact of global economic policy on Southern countries. In 1979, the General Assembly adopted the ‘Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women’ (CEDAW). The second UN World conference on women held at Copenhagen in Denmark in 1980. To review and appraise the achievements of the UN Decade for Women, third conference was held in Nairobi in 1985. The fourth conference held in 1995 in Beijing, China. In review of conference UN Division for women stated, “The fundamental transformation that took place in Beijing was the recognition of the need to shift the focus from women to the concept of gender, recognizing that the entire structure of society, and all relations between men and women within it, had to be reevaluated. Only by such a fundamental restructuring of society and its institutions could women by fully empowered to take their rightful place as equal partners with men in all aspects of life. This change represented a strong reaffirmation that women's rights were and that gender equality was an issue of universal concern, benefitting all.”.²⁶ In 2000, United Nations Security Council adopted a famous resolution 1325 (UNSCR 1325) under the title of ‘Women, Peace and Security’. The focus of this resolution is on women's participation at all levels of decision making, women protection and prevention of violence along with overarching principle: gender mainstreaming. Resolution also recognized that peace is inextricably linked with equality between man and woman and affirmed the equal access and full participation of women in power structure and their full involvement in all efforts for peace and security. Thus, the culmination of international conferences and resolutions for cause of women are the result of efforts of feminist movements, non-governmental organizations and feminist knowledge.

Although feminist thinking has contributed in IR but it is not without limitations. First of all it has failed to provide alternative theory to the mainstream theories of IR. It seems that it has only produced a critique of existing theories. After feminism put forward a critique of masculinity of mainstream IR theory, it does not further give clear explanation of how masculinity is formed and what is causal relationship with power politics. Feminism seems to be more an approach to see the society from different perspective related with the situation in which woman is, rather than a general theory to explain IR. It has provided only the other aspect to look at international politics.

Feminism has described much about the rights of women rather than building an alternative theory. Every branch of feminist scholarship has talked about rights of women: right of equality, liberty in terms of political rights, economic rights, protection from violence, and participation in decision making process. But such discussions about the equality of man and woman are presented they themselves project woman as inferior, rather than raising the voice for women for being a human. The rights which they deserve are natural rights not that there has to be parity between man and woman.

Another limitation of this perspective has been that feminist scholarship is not unified. There exists difference of opinion amongst the feminist scholars. Third world feminists claim that the concerns and interests of feminists in West are different from that of third world feminism. Third world feminists are critical of Western feminist scholars who claim to be able to speak for the oppressed women in third world countries. They regard it as another form of cultural imperialism. They argue that women's subordination must be addressed in their own cultural context. Even contrary views can be seen on an international policy instrument UNSCR 1325. Some of the feminist scholars regard UNSCR 1325 a tool that is used by powerful countries, located in North, to impose policies of north on post conflict countries of South in the name of gender equality. On the other hand, scholars like Soumita Basu contends that it is wrong to consider that the agenda of UNSCR1325 is simply an agenda imposed by developed powerful countries upon developing countries, which under the guise of benevolence, bend the agenda to suit their own global ambitions. Number of individuals and organizations especially from African countries of Global South were instrumental in the passage of resolution. Governments from the Global South have also lent support at the Security Council.²⁷

Thus, feminist perspective on International Politics is a step towards the objective of organization of non gendered IR discipline as well as an effort to develop a non- gendered perspective of looking at things. This non- gendered perspective can offer us a new way of thinking about relationship of men and women i.e. they are not superior and subordinate but equal in all aspects. It can be concluded that it is feminist scholarship, their research studies have made it understandable why women have not been visible in global politics; why they are economically disadvantaged in all the societies; why they are considered as soft target for exploitation, and, how they can be provided their due space in the society as well as in politics.

References1

Judith

Lorber

“Nights to his Day: The Social Construction of gender”, Accessed on 552016, URL: www.meac.org/programeresources/sg-web/seeinggender/pdfs/socialconstructionofgender.pdf

Jones

Scott

“Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis”, American Historical Review, 91, p.1069.

Ann Tickner

“You Just Don't Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists”, International Studies Quarterly, 1997 (41), p.614.

Judith

Lorber

Gender inequality: Feminist Theories and Politics, OUP, NewYork, 2010, (4th edn), p. 4.

Ibid, p.13.

Ealasaid

Munro

‘Feminism: A Fourth Wave?’, Accessed on 352016, URL: https/www.psa.ac.uk/insight-plus/feminism-fourthwave

Ann Tickner

, Gender in International Relations: Feminists’ Perspective on Achieving Global Security, Columbia University Press, New York, 1992.

Sylvester

“Empathetic Cooperation: A Feminist method for IR”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 23(2), 1994, p.316.

Cynthia

Enloe

Bananas, Beaches and Bases; Making Feminist Sense of International Politics, Pandora, London, 1989.

Carole

Pateman

The Sexual Contract, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1988, p.90.

Ann Tickner

, n.7, p.9.

Judith

lorber

n.4, pp, 10-12.

Ann Tickner

“Searching for the Princess? Feminist Perspectives in International Relations”, Harvard International Review, vol. 21, no. 4, Fall 1999, p.44.

1N Tauna ‘Reading philosophy as a woman A Feminist critique of the History of Philosophy’ in

Pellikaan- Engel

ed., Against Patriarchal Thinking. A Future without Discrimination, V U University Press, Amsterdam, 1992, PP. 52-53.

Ann Tickner

, “Hans Morgenthau's Principles of political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation”, Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 1988, vol. 17, PP. 437-438.

Spike Peterson

“Transgressing Boundaries: Theories of Knowledge, Gender and International Relations”, Millennium-Journal of International Studies, vol.21, no.2, 1992, p.202.

Gillians

Youngs

“Feminist International Relations: A Contradiction in Terms? Or: Why Women and Gender are Essential to Understanding the World ‘We’ Live in”, International Affairs, vol.1, no.80, 2004, p.78.

Jacque

True

‘Feminism’, in

Scott

Burchill

et al eds., Theories of International Relations, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, (3rd ed), p.222.

Spike Peterson

“Reaffirming the Politics of Identity: Democracy, globalization and gender”, Political Expressions, vol.1, 1995, p.4.

Hoffman

Gender and Sovereignty: Feminism, the State and International Relations, Palgrave, London, 2001, p.6.

Ibid, p.9.

Spike Peterson

Gendered States: Feminist (Re) Visions of International Relations Theory, Lynne Rienner, Boulder, 1992, p.14.

Ibid, p.46.

Ann Tickner

Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in the Post Cold War Era, Columbia University Press, New York, 2001, pp. 48-49.

Ann Tickner

n.7, p.69.

United Nations, “Global Issues”, Accessed on 1452016, URL: www.unorg/en/globalissues/women/

Soumita

Basu

“The Global South Writes 1325 (too)”, International Political Science Review, vol. 37, no. 3, 62016, pp.362-371.