So I heard on CNN the other day - on about their millionth hour of Haiti coverage - that only women are allowed to collect resources at several distribution banks in order to prevent conflicts, which have occurred at some sites. This calls to mind Ann Tickner’s theory of Gender in International Relations. Tickner claims that we have allowed for the masculinization of international relations, in which we use male-centered vocabulary that emphasizes force and power when thinking about security.
So here’s the question: are men the problem? If we put women in all of our diplomatic positions of power, could we attain Miss America’s goal of world peace? Are the male preoccupation with our status and power relative to those around us the root of our security insecurities? Because that’s what the lesson seems to be from Haiti’s distribution banks…
If we assume that this IS in fact the problem, it begs further the question: can we change the way we – both men and women – conduct foreign diplomacy and international relations?
I think this post brings up some pretty good points. Most of the people started the chaos in the streets were the men. Women, I think, are the key to world peace.
ReplyDeleteThere was evidence a long time ago that the more and more women that were given positions of leadership in Africa, made Africa better. With women as leaders, some parts of Africa had better economies and better societal interactions.
This suggests that maybe women, because they don't think in force and violence like men, might be the key to bringing about international peace.
If you want to make sweeping generalizations about men and women, and if you want to take Ms. America's advice on foreign policy, and if you want to assume that all men are obsessed with force and that all women are rational diplomats capable of solving any conflict, then maybe, yes, you can say that women should rule the world.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't want to do that, you could look at the examples of Margaret Thatcher, Yulia Tymoshenko, Condoleezza Rice and Angela Merkel to see that even when women are in the position of power in a state, they do not act so differently from men in the same positions.
Additionally, it is unlikely, if not impossible, that women will ever gain significant positions in most Islamic or Asian states, merely because of the culture of those countries. Nor will the leaders of those states, particularly the more radical ones like Iran and North Korea (and incidentally, those most inclined towards impeding world peace) take a female diplomat or head of state seriously, again, because of culture.
The African examples that you cite are mostly the result of two factors. First, that Africa is still largely a tribal continent and many tribes are accepting of a woman in a leadership position. Second, Africa has the opportunity to develop foreign and domestic policies, since most countries are so largely fragmented ethnically and religiously, and lacking cohesive national policies.
But the developed world has an established system of diplomacy, foreign policy, and war and peace. It may have been established by men but it is very unlikely that it will change drastically no matter which sex is in power. There is a foreign policy status quo that will almost certainly be maintained by both men and women.
You can claim men to be the problem, but you cannot overlook the hundreds of male leaders that have fostered peace and understanding. Mohandas Gandhi is an example of someone who rejected violence and achieved independence for India. Nor can you deny that Indira Gandhi, the more recent female leader of India who instituted hard line policies and martial law, was one of India's most aggressive leaders to date.
There will always be examples of aggressive and forceful male leaders, and soft, diplomatic and peace-promoting female leaders, and there will also be instances of the opposite. And while Ms. Alabama may have a wonderful dream of world peace, I'd rather trust someone like Secretary of States Clinton, Albright, or Rice who have the supreme authority on the subject of foreign affairs, yet still exert authority and power.
Ryan makes a great argument and I agree with him. You can't just make these broad assumptions about men and women - it runs the risk of elitism. If you think women might do a better job than men, give your reasons for it other than 'because they're women.'
ReplyDeleteIn empowering women, you can't marginalize men otherwise you just flip the injustice to the other side. I agree that more women SHOULD be involved in positions of leadership, but this involvement should be based on their individual achievement and capability, not just because they're women. Let's not commit the same chauvinism that feminists have complained about. Positions of power are no place to play around with affirmative action. Deducing that because women might be more peaceful just because they're women is a dangerous assumption. There are a lot of other factors that come in to play, like education, culture and background.
I am not familiar with Tickner's book but I'm curious why she sees force and power as male-centered. Aren't women just as capable of using force and power? Yes, just look at how many women have taken the position of Secretary of State lately: Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, and now Hillary Clinton. Secretary of State is a very powerful position in the US government, but has the fact that they've been women contributed towards any increased peace? Not that I've seen.
And it might also be important to note the cultural differences in Haiti - don't they follow more traditional roles for the genders there? Stereotyped as the meek, submissive woman and the powerful volatile man. It seems that it's that male-centered culture that produced such peaceful women. How do you compare the influence of culture in Haiti with the Western world where there's far more empowerment of women? These empowered women have actually become much more like men, which is not a bad thing unless you hate men. So if there IS something inherently different between men and women, should they really all be treated the same way? I'm not so much making an argument as exploring implications of the question you raise here. And don't assume that I like the status quo, because I don't. We need to make use of the differences between the sexes rather than isolating them because of those differences. The problem with the over-emphasis on a realist-centered foreign policy is not because a lot of men are in charge, but because a lot of REALIST men are in charge. You want less violent foreign diplomacy options, look at Constructivism and the example of ASEAN in Asia (yes, patriarchal Asia).
For as progressive as America thinks it is, there's still never been a woman president. Yet here are some examples of female heads of state in Asia: Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines and actually the second female president of that country; Megawati Sukarnoputri, who was President of Indonesia, which has the largest population of MUSLIMS in the world; Benazir Bhutto who was Prime Minister of Pakistan, another Muslim country. So the supposedly oppressive culture of these countries didn't prevent a woman from taking power.
In your post you talk about the, "masculinization of international relations, in which we use male-centered vocabulary that emphasizes force and power when thinking about security." To this I must ask, what should be emphasized when thinking about security if not force? Think about things like home security, there are aggressive, reactive but definitely aggressive measures that people take to maintain the security of their homes. The same principles apply to the security of nations. Its the alarm system not the flower beds that keep the bad guys out.
ReplyDelete