Feminism An Effective Challenge - 2207 Words

Feminism presents an effective challenge to orthodox approaches to international relations by criticising the absence of women in international relations in a number of key areas: the negative effect these policies have had on women, the emphasis on war and the dominance of masculinity. The main criticism of orthodox approaches is that they take a positivist approach to international relations; viewing the world as if there are set facts and truths. Feminist critical theory takes a post-positivist stance, rejecting realist and liberal theories of the world. Feminists criticise ‘the extent to which international politics is such a thoroughly masculinised sphere of activity that women s voices are considered inauthentic’ (Tickner 1992, p.†¦show more content†¦Feminist theory criticises orthodox approaches to international relations as they are positivist. Positivism uses a natural science methodology and applies it to social sciences. Therefore it treats internati onal relations as if there are definite facts to be discovered. Feminism, and other critical theories such as post-colonialism and poststructuralism, take issue with this approach as they believe that there aren’t definite facts when it comes to politics and international relations, and when looking at the world it is impossible to be value free. Feminists take a post-positivist view, arguing that we should not define international relations as merely being concerned with ‘high’ politics, such as national security, but that we should study ‘low’ politics, the politics of every day life, as well. Men dominate ‘high’ ares of politics and policy making which means in current approaches to international relations, where ‘low’ politics is not studied, men dominate and women are excluded. National and international policies are based solely, almost exclusively, on male experiences and opinions but women’s experiences are ig nored. By only studying the supposedly ‘high’ areas of politics, women are affected in devastating ways. For example, in current orthodox theories security is defined as national and between states, but by ignoring ‘low’ politics or the politics of everyday life, the security of individuals, of