The classical feminist critique of IR is a straw person and using diplomatic approaches to socialize and engage in behavioral learning does not link

Ann Tickner argued that whereas the Feminists are inclined to critical theory, mainstream IR is oriented towards problem solving theory. As a result, Tickner argued that Realism takes the world as it finds it and accepts the current order as its framework. Moreover, Tickner argued that whereas Feminists reject prefer humanist and philosophical traditions taking spatial and temporal attributes into account, Realists rely on positivist epistemologies taking the natural sciences as the models to follow. Lastly, Tickner argues that whereas Feminism is associated with the social construction of reality whereas Realists opt for an atomistic, asocial conception of behavior determined by the laws of nature (Tickner 1997). Against the criticisms of Ann Tickner, Robert Keohane argued that only a limited number of major IR theorists are oriented towards problem-solving, positivist and asocial (Keohane 1998, 194). Keohane focuses on Morgenthau since most of the criticisms of Tickner concentrates on him. Keohane argues that since Morgenthau was a refuge from Nazism, he was not satisfied with the prevailing world order of the late 1930’s and 1940’s as a framework of analysis. Moreover, Morgenthau had an intensely normative purpose: to prevent the reoccurrence of war generated by ideologies such as fascism and communism. Kenneth N. Waltz, the leader in Neo-Realist Theory, underlined the importance of socialization in the world politics and as a result it not appropriate to regard him an advocate of asocial theories (Keohane 1998, 194). Against the last criticism of Tickner, Keohane argued that “no serious student of international relations expect to discover meaningful universal laws that operate deterministically, since they recognize that no generalization is meaningful without specification of its scope conditions. One can recognize that knowledge is socially constructed without giving up the efforts to widen intersubjective agreement on important issues” (Keohane 1998, 194).