INR blog post 1

            Upon registering to take Gender and International relations I was hesitant to step into a course and an area of political science that I didn't really understand. After a couple of classes and articles read, I can say that gender and international relations are two subjects that definitely go hand in hand. A main topic discussed in the course has been the varying articles that focus on mainly women and feminism as an accredited and historically excluded science in the studies of political science. The two articles that  grabbed my attention were: Contributions of a feminist Standpoint by Robert Keohane, and Different Communities/ Different Realities/ Different Encounters: A reply to J. Ann Tickner by Marianne Marchand. Both articles demonstrate wide ranges of knowledge pertaining to gender, feminist ideologies, and masculine influence in daily society. While Marianne Marchand mentions institutions and their role in international relations in response to J. Ann Tickner, Robert Keohane goes in depth on feminist theories and the “two complementary critiques of neorealism” (Keohane, page 250).

            Personally, as a man I strongly believe that the viewpoints of men and women vary largely. The thought process of men and women are based on a multitude of factors, which reflect upon different societies across the world. Gender is a strong indicator as to how a society operates and functions. However, misrepresentation has largely allowed society to operate under the lens and insights of a man. Keohane highlights in his article that the feminist standpoint centers around women’s experiences at the margins of politics are valid and do deserve to have their opinions taken seriously. In a patriarchal society, it is very difficult to integrate women and their mindsets. International relations in particular are also centered on large amounts of male participants and male vocabulary. A strong state with a strong leader has always been associated with a man. An example of this would be when American’s say we are the most powerful country in the world we largely refer to our ability attack any country with the number of nuclear weapons that we possess. Also, if asked to recall when the United States was under the control of a strong leader the answer would on hundred percent be under a male president because the United States has never had a female president, which is relevant to contemporary world politics.

            I agree with the Keohane on institutions being the driving factor in international relations. As Keohane mentions, ‘the ability to act in concert’ is paramount to establish a functioning democracy which would not exist without institutions in place. With international relations largely reflecting male thinking, I also agree with Keohane’s premise of redefining power beyond just the typical A and B explanation mentioned in the article. Keohane’s conclusion calls for the possibility that “feminist standpoint theories may reinforce an emerging trend away from the fragmentation and atomization inherent in traditional conceptions of international relations.” (Keohane, page 251), which I agree with due largely to the feminist inclusion of valid points mentioned previously. Marchand adds to this by including the fact that the reality is that the s epistemological and ontological differences are important to recognize as potential causes for misunderstanding amongst cultures. I also would agree with this premise because international vary significantly, even amongst countries that are geographically near one another.

            Personally, being first generation American, whose family is entirely from Brazil, has allowed me to put a large amount of information from the reading into perspective about the feminist approach. There is currently a large movement towards inclusion that has been made in Brazil in regard to women and feminism, even after the election of its current right-wing president. This in my opinion was reflected in the appointing of Brazil’s first female president in 2016. Other examples including the chancellor of Germany, the prime minister of Denmark, and the former president of Argentina, are all examples of female inclusion the relevance of both articles in contemporary world politics.

            After assessing both articles I feel convinced at the arguments made by both Keohane and Marchand. Both theories proposed provided valuable and relevant insight as to how feminism is meant to function, while including nuanced methods that in some ways even challenged the ideologies of other feminist. However, I feel that both authors could have provided more examples of societal and institutional dilemmas that occur in the world and in particular countries. Overall, I look forward to week 5, and the other articles that pertain to nuanced culture dynamics archaic institutions, and feminism.