The the f?reign p?licy is the ar?na of

The question about female
and male representation in the field of international relations is a very
controversial issue. International?l r?lations (IR),
has only r?cently m?de a pl?ce for f?male standp?int.  It is import?nt
to ch?nge the w?y in which the f?eld of internation?l relati?ns is
convention?lly construct?d and to r?examine the
traditi?nal boundari?s of the field.

The internati?nal relati?ns field is f?rmed by the m?n`s knowledge
and experience. This means that gender is a determin?nt of p?wer that sh?pes our kn?wledge and
attitude to a certain sphere. Thus, g?nder is a
relation?l conc?pt:
masculin?ty and f?mininity
dep?nd on each other for p?wer relati?ns
construct?on. Manlin?ss has also been ass?ciated with v?olence and the us? of f?rce which are
consider?d to be the c?re characterist?cs of internati?nal relati?ns. In m?st fi?lds of kn?wledge, we have bec?me accust?med to equ?ting what is
hum?n
with what is mascul?ne. Nowh?re is this m?re obvious than in internation?l relati?ns, a discipl?ne that b?ses its assumpt?ons and
explanat?ons alm?st entir?ly on the activiti?s and experienc?s of m?n.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

By
contrast, femin?st IR l?oks
at IR through gender?d l?nses.
F?minists generally def?ne g?nder
as a vari?ble s?cial
constructi?n signify?ng
un?qual power relati?ns. It is true that w?men are
underrepres?nted in all t?p-l?vel positi?ns in the Unit?d Stat?s and in the w?rld in g?neral. Th?y
encount?r additi?nal difficulti?s in positi?ns h?ving to do with
internation?l relati?ns. For
example, th?re
are alm?st no l?gal
restricti?ns in the US on wom?n
yet wom?n compr?se less
th?n 20% of the US Congr?ss (Jacqui 2016).  Historically, the f?reign p?licy is the ar?na of p?licy-mak?ng l?ast appropr?ate for wom?n. Dr?wing attenti?n to g?nder hi?rarchies that
privil?ge
m?n,
it is n?cessary to m?ke the w?men’s experienc?s v?sible to the w?rld.  The society should st?rt to talk
openly about this issue, otherwise, the marginalizati?n of wom?n in matt?rs relat?d to
internation?l relat?ons h?s no chances to change. The postm?dern frame
allows the deconstructi?n of exist?ng g?nder identiti?s in IR. The w?man`s
participati?n in internation?l negotiat?on and oth?r f?rms of d?cision- mak?ng proc?ss may add a
posit?ve
el?ment
of n?wness
to the fi?ld of IR. Ign?ring wom?n’s experienc?s contribut?s not only to
th?ir
exclusi?n but also to a pr?cess of
self-selecti?n that r?sults in an overwhelm?ngly male p?pulation b?th in the f?reign pol?cy world and in
the academ?c field of internati?nal r?lations.

Zalevski, Enloe, and
Tickner fare those sch?lars
who by focus?ng on questi?ns
of gend?r and internati?nal
relati?ns br?ught a c?mmon
commitm?nt to understand?ng
how soc?al relati?ns of
mascul?nity and f?mininity, of g?nder
identiti?s and s?xualities,
of g?nder differ?nce, are implic?ted
in internati?nal polit?cs. In their work,
Zalevski and Enloe (1995) rev?al
the l?ck of attenti?n to b?th w?men
and g?nder relati?ns in the br?ad r?nge
of internation?l polit?cs
from d?ily liv?d experi?nce
to internati?nal instituti?ns. Th?ir w?rk
poses a v?ry simple but crucial question as “wh?re are the
w?men?”
that chall?nge the tak?n-for-grant?d irrelev?nce of w?men in w?rld affa?rs.

Tickn?r (1992), on the other h?nd, examin?s ch?nges
in IR and internati?nal p?litics
at the ?nd of the Cold War fr?m a
femin?st perspect?ve. She cla?ms
that m?n are associ?ted with defend?ng st?te wh?le wom?n h?ld more c?mforting rul?s such as m?thers, teach?rs, or social work?rs. I agree with her core
idea that w?men
are b?ing prot?cted, but h?ve no s?y in
h?w or und?r what conditi?ns
(Tickner 1992).

Many sch?lars h?ve already not?d th?t, giv?n our curr?nt technol?gies of destruct?on and the h?gh d?gree of ec?nomic in?quality and environm?ntal degradati?n that n?w ex?sts, we are desper?tely in n?ed of ch?nges in the way w?rld polit?cs is conduct?d. Since kn?wledge ab?ut the behavi?r of stat?s in the internation?l syst?m d?pends on assumpti?ns that c?me out of m?n’s experienc?s, it ignor?s a l?rge b?dy of hum?n experi?nce c?ming from wom?n. The ch?nges in this situati?n could bring the range of opti?ns and op?n up n?w ways of think?ng.