Sunday, September 28, 2014

In “A Critique of Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism” written by J. Ann Ticker, she goes on to discuss the difficulties women may face in International politics when given positions that hold great responsibility and pressure. Naturally it has been believed that women are more emotionally unstable in relations to men. And some of the scholars that Ticker referred to believe this to be one of the main reasons why society may not be in full acceptance of a woman in a position of leadership. In fear that they may not be able to handle crucial situations that demand sacrifices of few or many lives.
            Over time women have been given more and more privileges that have been considered rights to men for decades.  Such as voting, receiving equal pay/employment, and being able to join the United States armed forces. “Today, in the United States, where women are entering the military and the foreign service in greater numbers than ever before, they are rarely to be found in positions of military leadership or at the top of the foreign policy establishment.”(Tickner) There are few reasons that beg the question if our system is using discriminatory practices when it comes to decisions made about distribution of responsibility. However women in the United States have proved to be equally as successful and efficient as men. And in some regards its seems that having a leader with innate compassion amongst other feminine characteristics would prove to be beneficial nonetheless. Furthermore, from the reading, Tickner presents us with the feminist perspective when it comes to international relations. Feminists are said to seek the common moral elements in human aspirations that could become the basis for de-escalating international conflict and building an international community (Tickner). Tickner makes a point that is support to my perspective in essence. Women do have certain capabilities that men do not necessarily possess. And these certain humanitarian capabilities could very well reduce global aggression and could increase international relations with a potentially hostile nation. It is not about gender when it comes to critical decision-making, it is about critical thought ability, and intellectual capacity that the man or woman possesses.

            Morgenthau’s perspective about political realism is interesting and well supported nonetheless. However there are crucial flaws in Morgenthau’s principles that J. Anne Tickner has addressed in relations to the gender inequality that is portrayed in our government. Women are faced with discriminatory practices whether they were intended to be discriminatory or not. This is the exact reason why I agree with Tickner in her critique of Morgenthau’s principles regarding the necessity for male dominance in positions of power both in international relations and domestic relations.   

2 comments:

  1. While we can not know this for sure, as you are absolutely right that there aren't many women in these positions of power, I tend to agree with the general consensus the class came to two discussions ago regarding the change, if any, that would occur if more women were in these positions of power. I simply feel that at the point of these high powered positions, the ultimate decisions made would be very similar regardless of whether or not a man or a woman is in power. While women do tend to possess more of a moral compass, and perhaps the process to making these decisions would change, I highly doubt (thought this is merely speculation) that foreign policy would change drastically simply due to gender. I believe, as we said in discussion, that political ideology is probably a more efficient predictor of foreign policy decisions by those in power than gender is. However, I do agree with you that we need more women in positions of power and perhaps my theory would be proven wrong when that takes place.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is definitely something to be said about the misconception of women in leadership being somehow less efficient or less effective than male leaders. While it's definitely possible that foreign policy procedures may change if there is an increase in female leadership, I think some of the most telling signs of society's reluctance towards women in power is in the career of Margaret Thatcher, who is one of the few prominent female leaders to have dealt in military action, namely in the Falkland islands. Regardless of the results of the war, it is telling how firmly history seems to come down upon Thatcher, as opposed to her counterpart in the U.S., Reagan.

    ReplyDelete