The discourse on gendered in International Relations (IR) is heavily focussed on women and children. However, this skewed focus of study in IR facilitates a dangerous patriarchal system that exploits men who do not fall into the hegemonic category of masculinity as well as it perpetuates gendered understandings of masculinity as powerful, violent, and strong. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain a balance in the study of gender and IR in order to allow women and femininity a proper voice in IR while maintaining a voice for men and forms of masculinity who are vulnerable or at risk of violence or exploitation.
A current understanding of IR is that when studying gender, one should studying women and children as vulnerable populations in a …show more content…
The similarity between these diverse feminist theories is the agreeance in the history of discrimination of women and the political agenda to forward women’s rights and status worldwide (Wibben, pg. 105). In regards to men and masculinity, feminist theories have differing attitudes towards the manner in which masculinity and men should be included, or if it should be included at all. The “women and IR approach” highlights the manners in which women are present in IR (Wibben, pg. 105). With an online search for “women and human rights” outnumbering “those for ‘men and human rights’” by over 500 times, the women and IR approach perpetuates the lack of men and masculinity as a substantial area in the gendered studying of IR (Jones, pg. xviii). Therefore, the approach, “gender and IR” is a more appropriate approach to achieving a gender-inclusive agenda. In the ‘gender and IR” paradigm, feminist scholars “interrogate how femininity and masculinity both produce gendered international relations” and how gender shapes “concepts, ideas, and institutions central to the discipline” (Wibben, pg. 106). This feminist paradigm allows for male-specific insecurities to receive attention without diminishing the voice feminist scholarship towards female and femininity vulnerabilities. The last applicable feminist approach is the postmodern, or post-positivist approach in which academics critique the concepts, frameworks, and criteria of the mainstream IR discipline (Wibben, pg. 100). This approach is critical of ‘feminist empiricism’ and argues that it provides a limited study into IR. While there are flaws to the arguments of postmodern feminists’ arguments, the role of studying masculinity and men in relation to re-contextualized understandings of power, statehood, sovereignty, and security allows for discussions on masculine vulnerability in areas of conflict and in the global
A current understanding of IR is that when studying gender, one should studying women and children as vulnerable populations in a …show more content…
The similarity between these diverse feminist theories is the agreeance in the history of discrimination of women and the political agenda to forward women’s rights and status worldwide (Wibben, pg. 105). In regards to men and masculinity, feminist theories have differing attitudes towards the manner in which masculinity and men should be included, or if it should be included at all. The “women and IR approach” highlights the manners in which women are present in IR (Wibben, pg. 105). With an online search for “women and human rights” outnumbering “those for ‘men and human rights’” by over 500 times, the women and IR approach perpetuates the lack of men and masculinity as a substantial area in the gendered studying of IR (Jones, pg. xviii). Therefore, the approach, “gender and IR” is a more appropriate approach to achieving a gender-inclusive agenda. In the ‘gender and IR” paradigm, feminist scholars “interrogate how femininity and masculinity both produce gendered international relations” and how gender shapes “concepts, ideas, and institutions central to the discipline” (Wibben, pg. 106). This feminist paradigm allows for male-specific insecurities to receive attention without diminishing the voice feminist scholarship towards female and femininity vulnerabilities. The last applicable feminist approach is the postmodern, or post-positivist approach in which academics critique the concepts, frameworks, and criteria of the mainstream IR discipline (Wibben, pg. 100). This approach is critical of ‘feminist empiricism’ and argues that it provides a limited study into IR. While there are flaws to the arguments of postmodern feminists’ arguments, the role of studying masculinity and men in relation to re-contextualized understandings of power, statehood, sovereignty, and security allows for discussions on masculine vulnerability in areas of conflict and in the global