The AFFs notion that throwing 10 more men in power will save us all only increases the subjugation of female voices in IR resulting in more gendered violence

Tickner argues that IR is gendered to “marginalize women’s voices,” and stresses “that women have knowledge, perspectives and experiences that should be brought to bear on the study of international relations.” For example, Tickner would argue that security, a main topic in IR, should not only be understood as “defending the state from attack,” but should also consider that security for women “might be different because women are more likely to be attacked by men they know, rather than strangers from other states.” 10 In other words, in contrast to traditional IR views that view security as protecting the state from other states, feminists argue the topic of security should address acts of rape and violence, not only from foreign perpetrators, but from their own fellow citizens as well. Feminists would also add that occurrences of rape increase during times of war, and is even used as a method of ethnic cleansing among the rivalries within their state, 11 yet would never enter into typical IR discussions that focus solely on stateto-state interaction, simply because IR discussions traditionally remain focused on states as the key actors. Thus, the topic of security shows how gender consideration, excluded from the very beginning of the discussion, results in policymaking that would be subsequently exclusive of, and likely detrimental to, women. Prior to discussing any IR topic, standpoint feminist IR theory would first challenge those participating in the discussion, and those defining the key terms and issues, by critically asking them if the normative perspectives and working vocabulary are broad enough to effectively accommodate issues affecting women. In addition to standpoint feminism, Griffiths also presents an explanation of radical feminist theory. “The radical feminist focus[es] on the lives and experiences of women...showing how women’s activities are made invisible on the international scene.” 12 She describes the writings of feminist Cynthia Enloe, who is famous for the question “where are the women?” One of Enloe’s main arguments is that feminists should not only seek to include themselves in the higher realms of policymaking and leadership, but should search for where women have already fulfilled roles to “ensure the international system works smoothly and efficiently”, such as “the work done by diplomatic wives and military prostitutes.” 13 Following this method of inquiry leads to consideration of more marginalized issues -- or “low politics” -- in IR, e.g., issues concerning sex, trafficking, and migration of labor. Enloe would argue that though such issues may be considered less important than the forefront issues of military and war, they serve to uphold the critical processes of smooth diplomacy and local relations between foreign states, in such areas as military bases in times of war, or at state dinners for foreign diplomats. Radical feminism stresses that women have never really been excluded from the core of international relations, but have simply not been publicly or professionally acknowledged for their past and present contributions to central issues in IR. This leads to the next question: what are the main topics in IR, and what do feminists have to say about these issues? Theories of realism and liberalism will be considered in presenting feminist critiques of how IR issues are traditionally framed and addressed. Realism centers its theoretical structure on how the state seeks power and defends its national interests against other competing states within a global anarchy, or where there is the lack of authority higher than the state. States seek security through a balance of power in the international arena, primarily through military means, and resorting to war, if necessary. Realists generally view the state as the key actor in international politics, and de-emphasize – or, as feminist theory argues, ignore -- the role of the individual. Much feminist IR theory stems from a critique of realism, whose “socially constructed worldview continues to guide much thought about world politics.” 14 First, feminists argue that realists overvalue the role of the state in defining international relations, without questioning how the state itself is internally structured, politically and socially. Feminist theory would consider how the state includes, or excludes, the views of its individual citizens, and how, in turn, the state’s domestic views translate into foreign policies. In challenging the concepts of a state defending its national interests, feminists would ask: who is defining the national interests? If women were included in such discussions, would the national interest be interpreted differently, and if so, how? How would such an outlook change foreign policy? 14 Charles W. Kegley and Eugene R. Wittkopf. World Politics: Trend & Transformation. (USA: Wadsworth, 2004), 36. How would the definition of ‘security’ change? Would military and defense capabilities still be atop the agenda? Would women necessarily be less militaristic in their approach to IR issues? An example of how gender studies might reflect a state’s sociopolitical construction is reflected in a recent empirical study completed by Mark Tessler and Ina Warriner. To discover links between gender, feminism, and international relations within and among societies, Tessler and Warriner based their analysis on survey data from four areas in the Middle East, each quite different from one another socially, politically, and ideologically: Israel, Egypt, Palestine, and Kuwait. Seeing as how the Middle East offers an ideal example of states acting as realist actors, their findings are quite relevant to feminist IR theory. Three points deserve emphasis: • “women are not more pacific than men in their attitudes toward international conflict” • “regardless of the sex...[of the survey participant], persons who express greater concern for the status and role of women, and particularly for equality between women and men, are more likely than other[s]...to believe that the international disputes in which their country is involved should be resolved through diplomacy and compromise” • “the promotion of progressive values...is likely to increase support in the Middle East for peace through diplomacy and compromise.” 15 Though the authors note these relationships can be better understood by including other countries in such studies, 16 their analysis shows that first, women are not necessarily pacifists by nature, and second, having key actors in the state system who believe in 15 Mark Tessler and Ina Warriner, “Gender, Feminism, and Attitudes Toward International Conflict: Exploring Relationships with Survey Data from the Middle East.” World Politics 49.2 (1997): 250-281. Project Muse (15 November 2003). 16 Mark Tessler and Ina Warriner, “Gender, Feminism, and Attitudes Toward International Conflict: Exploring Relationships with Survey Data from the Middle East.” World Politics 49.2 (1997): 250-281. Project Muse (15 November 2003). gender equality can be linked to increased use of diplomacy and compromise in their state’s foreign policy. Another feminist critique of realism concerns how realists define and emphasize power in IR discussions. Feminists would ask: who defines power, who has it, and how is it used? If power is defined by a patriarchal and realist society, which seeks global balances of power, then power is equated with military and economic strength. But how would this change if the discussion included women’s viewpoints? Would the indicators of power be measured differently? Would power be seen as leadership in peace agreements, or might it be measured in terms of the ability to achieve transnational cooperation?