Feminism and Internatinal Relations
Junhui Joo (Asia United Theological University)
For the past two decades, feminism has emerged as alternative perspective in various fields of social science including sociology, history, political science, economics, and anthropology. However, it is only in recent years that feminism entered discourse on international relations. It seems that international relations is one of the most male centered, gendered and patriarchal field remaining closed to the access by women.
It is especially so in Korea which appointed its first woman Ambassador to Finland only in 1996. There are very few women experts in international relations, whether in college or in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The strong influence of Confucianism is responsible for prevalent gender segregation in society. And the Cold War tended to strengthen militarism and the typically masculine nature of politics in Korea, with strong characteristics of authoritarianism in domestic politics and rigid confrontational dealings with North Korea. There was a little room for feminine conception of international relations to have impact in international relations. However, with the end of the Cold War, feminism might be able to offer some viable alternatives to the theory and practice of international relations in Korea.
In the post - Cold War era, one of the remarkable tendencies in the development of politics is the so-called "the revolution of women's politics". Especially in the 1980's, women from various parts of the world have made conscious efforts to enter into politics and have been successful especially in the Western countries.
To consider a few statistics, the world average of proportion of women legislators is 11%. In local assemblies, women account for 20-40% in Australia, Austria, Canada, Norway, Sweden and so on. In the United Sates the proportion of women in local assemblies increased from 4.8% in 1971 to 18.2% in 1996. Women constitute more than one thirds of seats in Arizona, Maine, New Hampshire, Virmont, Washington, and Colorado.
Most European countries have more than 20% women in the Cabinet. Now many women are the key decision makers of foreign policy. Gemany had a woman foreign minister, and Sweden, Canada had woman Ministers of Defense (Joo 1993).
Also, many countries are led by women women heads of the states, for example ex-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of England, Prime Minister Gro Halem Brundland of Norway , President Mary Robinson of Ireland, and Prime Minister Zia of Bangladesh, among many others. In the United States, 24% of Political Science professors are women, and 20% of authors of articles published are women (APSA 1993, 94). It means that women are becoming major actors of international relations, both in academic discipline and practice.
Since the late 1980's, especially since Millennium: Journal of International Relations published by London School of Economics held a seminar on women and international relations in 1988, feminist studies have made efforts at deconstructing and reconstructing international relationstheories, analyzing the male-centeredness of the theories and viewing international relationsfrom women's eyes.
What does it all mean? What does the entrance of women into the field of international mean in theory and practice? Does it mean only adding women's experiences into the subjects to be studied? What difference do women make?
The purpose of this paper is to critically review the feminist discourse on international relationswhich have emerged in recent years, and discuss how the theories and practices of international relations in Korea can benefit from the feminist perspectives .
Feminism, Gender, and Gender Difference
Feminism refers to a wide variety of perspectives including liberal feminism, Marxist feminism, radical feminism, socialist feminism, psychoanalytic feminism, existential feminism and postmodern feminism. What they have in common is their faith in
gender equality. The focus of analysis is on gender relations.
Gender is the socially constructed dichotomy of masculine-femine shaped only in part by biologically construed male-female distinctions (sex). Although it varies across different cultures, the concept of masculinity is usually constructed with such
attributes as aggressiveness, independence, reason, decisiveness, leadership, ambition, and superiority. Feminity tends to be associated with passiveness, dependence, emotion, indecisiveness, obedience, family-centeredness, lack of ambition, and inferiority. Basically, women's studies in substance is "a theory of social relations based on human experience" (Rebecca Grant 1991, 9). The main characteristics of feminism is that it speaks up against the discrimination , subjugation, and oppression of women and demands their solutions (Tong 1989).
According to Sapiro (1983), women have been unfairly alienated from politics because of the traditinal division of public and private spheres. Such asymmetrical dichotomies as public-private, culture-nature, rational-irrational, order-anarchy, mind-body, and objective-subjective are derived from a fundamental Western construction of masculine over feminine. Politics belong to the public sphere dominated by the masculine values of competition, aggression, cruelty and amorality. Women belong to the private sphere of home , the world of obedience, nurturing , caring and sacrifice. Machiavelli believed that women have nothing to do with realpolitik, possessed of soft values and senses for beauty (Pitkin 1984).
The same dichotomized way of thinking is found in men's tendency to think that the hard core of international relations is war and military security relations, while peace studies or political economy are soft and "peripheral" international relationstheories of less importance. Harold Nicolson believed that the feminine qualities of "zeal, sympathy, and intuition" were "dangerous qualities in international affairs"(Miller 1991, 75).
Men's tendency to think in terms of dichotomies explains why the systemic theory of international relationsexplains the immoral or amoral behavior of moral man in terms of the anarchic structure of international system. Men tend to be quite comfortable in separating the spheres morality and reality and then neglecting the former for the sake of the latter.
Feminism deconstructs the masculine biases in the dichotomies and argues that the morality of private sphere should be integrated into international relations (Elshtain 1974).
Sapiro's feminist utopia was an androgynous world where women participate in politics, and men share more in domestic chores and childrearing. There is no artificial dichotomy of masuclinity and feminity, and cultural transformation occurs where women are integrated into politics through radical resocialization process.
Such a preference for androgynous integration is emphasized in earlier feminism when women were beginning to enter men's world,
The earlier feminists considered the feminity as undesirable and inferior which was enforced upon women through oppressive socialization process. They wanted to be liberated from the gendered conception of feminity. They wanted to be just like men and struggled to prove they were as good as men. In order for women to be integrated into politics, women's mental feminity or privatization needed to be eliminated (Sapiro, 183). Many women who started entering men's wild world of politics in the 1970's usually appeared in the least feminine attires such as black or grey suits and tried to imitate men's leadership.
Postmodern Feminism, Body Politics, and Women's Transfored and Transforming Politics of Nurturing and Caring
As women accumulated experiences and acquired confidence in
the men's world, they found that women are different, and actually better than men in many aspects, and that they should participate in politics as "women". That's when, for example, women in legislatures became more confident in in red and pink attires and
became more comfortable being females.
In the 1990's, postmodernism and the radical feminism of gender difference are interwoven and form an inseparable alliance.
Such a paradigm shift in American feminism was inspired by Carol Gilligan's In A Different Voice (1982). Here she emphasized the concept of caring as a special trait of feminity. The feminist philosophy of sexual difference engenders and promotes an ethic of caring and empowers the politics of resonsibility, that is, the ethic of caring as responsibility.
Gilligan argues that women's moral orientation is radically different from its male counterpart.
"...the moral problem arises from conflicting responsiblities rather than from competing rights and requires for its resolution a mode of thinking that is contextual and narrative rather than formal and abstract. This conception of morality as concerned with the activity of care centers moral development around the understanding of responsiblity and relationships, just as the conception of morality as fairness ties moral development to the understanding of rights and rules (19)."
A paradigm shift from self-centered autonomy to other-centered heteronomy is at the heart of the ethic of caring and responsibility which corresponds to the paradigm shift from modernity to postmodernity. The Genesis of women starts by saying ; "in the beginning was a relationship"(Jardin 1985). Caring is a relational concept. That's what makes women's politics relational.
Women's unique experiences of childbirth and childrearing account for caring and nurturing as distinguished characteristics of feminine leadership. Maternal thinking is what is needed in conflict resolution, peace keeping, and the recovery of community ( Ruddick,1984).
Body politics finds the feminine in the human body, and dominate the landscape of postmodern thought. Body politics explores the structure of body and caring as a public philosophy of responsibility that is at once carnal, ethical, social, and political (Chung 1995). A body provides a primary contacting point in human relationship with the other. Relationships are first an exchange of material bodies; they are in need of bodies in relation (Chung 6). Feminity is associated with the sense of touch more closely than with sight. The touch of hand is basically feminine. Men see through mind, while women touch through body.
The intimacy of that silent, multiple, diffuse touch is unmistakably a feminine sexual distinction (Irigaray 1985). Women's politics is defined as caring and the other-orientedness based on the moral stage of touching which unites intimacy and responsibility. Motherhood is praised as the ultimate of selfless caring of feminity. Feminity is understood as caring, which is relational, responsive, and responsible.
In the 1990's, feminists would argue that women can be a lot better politicians than men, much more capable of clean and moral politics, and more capable of being genuinely oncerned with life, environment, and the quality of life.
However, caution should be taken in assuming a unified female experience. The question of whether women are essentially different from men - that is, have a distinctively "women's perspective" - is easily read as a biologically essentialist claim compatible with conservative discourse about sex role stereotypes, that is, proper roles for women and men.
There might have been an exaggerated focus on the differences between men and women, leaving a dangerously distorted portrait of woman as woman.
It is necessary to go beyond the exaggerated dichotomies of men-mental, women-physical, men-power conflict, and women-morality. In some of the feminist arguments, the same old male dichotomy is repeated, with feminine being superior. All the evils of existing politics are blamed against masculinity, and women's political participation is expected to solve all the problems and bring about a feminist utopia. However all the perspectives , whether feminsit or male chauvinist, are partial and imperfect.
With that in mind, there is no doubt that women have their own assets of comparative advantage, and feminist perspective will surely complement what are lacking in men's insights.
Feminism and International Relations Theories
Feminist theories of international relationsstarts from the premise that all the existing international relationstheories are gendered, patriarchal and male-centered.
Most of the knowledge produced in our society has been produced by men; they have usually generated the explanations and have then checked with each other and vouched for the accuracy and adequacy of their view of the world. What men have created has been men's studies , for , by not acknowledging that they are presenting only the explanations of men, they have "passed off" this knowledge as human knowledge (Spender, introduction).
Women's experience differs from the male experience, and male experience is only partial human experience only partially understood; namely, masculine experience as understood by men. When the male experience is taken to be gender-free, as the human experience, the resulting theories distort human social life and human thought.
Based on the premise, feminist scholarship proceeds to the deconstruction of gender-biased knowledge claims and the reconstruction of gender-sensitive theory. They try to correct androcentric falsehoods by adding women and their experience to existing frameworks. The inclusion of women expands the range of knowledge by "asking new questions and generating new data". Deconstructing the errors of androcentric scholarship revealed patterned distortion of truth claims about "social reality."
Not simply seeking access to and participating within androcentric paradigms, feminist reconstruction explores the theoretical implications of revealing systemic masculinist bias and systematically adding women.
International Relations has been a field dominated by men. As an attempt is made to "add women", or add feminity to categories constituted by their masculinity, which is the exclusion of feminity, one comes across with contradiction. Either women should become men, or the category must be transformed to accomodate women. With the inclusion of women in international relations, not only the understanding of the public sphere and politics transformed, but the meaning of masculinity is also changed.
Therefore it is argued that women's studies is not peripheral to but transformative of men's studies. (Peterson, 1992 , 9)
As Betty Reardon points out (1989, 25);
" The lion can lie down with the lamb in a nurturing rather than devouring reltionship, only if each is able to transform its reality by transforming itself."
Feminism is not just "about women" nor the addition of women to male - stream constructions; it is about transforming ways of being and knowing. It can increase empirical accuracy for revealing masculinist bias in theories and enable alternative visions.
"Taking gender seriously enhances not only empirical accuracy, but theoretical adequacy and emancipatory possiblities."(Peterson, 24).
Men have very biased understanding of human nature, political man, the nature of human society, relations with the others, and the characteristics of the state system in the field of international relations.
In contrast to male preoccupation with political control, power, interest and realism, feminists tend to emphasize morality, environment, peace, cooperation, development, and reproduction.
A variety of feminist-International Relations conversations are increasingly visible: women's rights as a dimension of international human rights discourse; the history and contemporary relevance of women's peace and ecological activism; research on "women and politics" in terms of women's political activities within the state, independent of the state, and transnationally. and the role of gender in military institutions, nationalism, foreign policy, and international politics broadly construed.
Power, Political Realism, and Security
The very basic concept of power is deconstructed and reconstructed from a feminist perspective. Men and women tend to have different understandings of power and exercise it in different ways. While men are interested in taking control in competition
with others, women tend to define power in the terms of relations, as capacity to help each other grow.
Power is defined by feminists as the power to act together with people of similar concerns (Arendt 1969, 44). Women's power is shared together rather than exercized against the others (McClelland 1975) , and it is exercized in the form of persuation and networking (Jaquette 1984).
In 1988, Tickner opened an attack on the political realism of Conflict Among Nations by Hans Morgenthau. While Morgenthau starts with the assumption that there are observable patterns in
politics based upon unchanging human nature which makes it possible to develop empirical political science, it should be pointed out that what he perceives as unchanging human nature is that of male. Human nature includes both feminity and masculinity. Not only political domination but also social reproduction and development are important political reality. Power is defined as control of man over man. Such a definition is hardly universal but male-centered and neglect the feminine conception of power. And while Morgethau rationalizes amoral international behaviors, recognizing the conflict between morality and successful political behavior, from feminist viewpoint, the two cannot be separated. Universal moral concerns of human-beings are important basis for solving international problems and developing international community.
The gendered nature of international relations theories is found also in the concepts of political man, games among nations, the concept of national security, and the concept of the state itself. Modern states and contemporary interstate system depend in part on the maintenance of unequal gender relations (Tickner 1992). The conept of national security can be expanded if it can move away from male obssession with military matters and power. For example the fulfillment of basic needs in the North-South relations and issues such as environment have emerged as important concepts in security.
The origin of Security Dilemma can be traced to the masculine dichotomy of public and private spheres, and of individual morality and public behavior (Grant 1991). A woman political leader would show a different conception regarding Security Dilemma, since it is a typically masculine way of looking at the world.
Peace Studies, Conflict Resolution and Ecofeminism
War and military issues have been deeply gendered activities throughout history. Feminists have examined the gender dynamics of militarism, arguing that the visions of security must address the gender of military ideology. It would be too simplistic to claim that men are aggressive and women are more peaceful, but still proper to note that men's aggressive behavior is encouraged through appeals to masculinity (Tickner 1995, 49).
The ideological and cultural conflation of manhood, combat, militarism, and national chauvinism not only reproduces violence but glorifies it as a "natural " expression of masculine and nation state identitites.
Tickner sees the interrelatedness of gender and structural violence; women are disproportionately victims of structural violence and it is gender inequalities that are often responsible for women's particular vulnerability. Although women represent one-third of the world's paid labor force, they are responsible for two-thirds of all working hours and yet receive only one-tenth of world income and own less than 1 percent of world property (51).
In conflict resolution, women tend to use different methods form male. While boys in kindergarten enjoy competitive games which sometimes erupt into fights, girls tend to end the game before fights break out in order to "make friends" (Gilligan 1982).
Girls tend to favor cooperative games which do not require the victory of one and the loss of the other. Women can make good peace makers, and women diplomats will be much more skillful in negotiations, bargaining, and conflict resolution. The leadership of Prime Minister Gro Halem Brundlandt of Norway during the 1993 Middle East peace negotiation is to be noted.
Therefore, maternal thinking is essential in conflict resolution, peace making, non-violence, and recovery of community in international relations (Ruddick 1984, ch.13).
Ecofeminism is another form of feminist contribution to international relations. Ecofeminists assert that the instrumental attitude toward nature, which they believe is responsible for contemporary environmental problems, arose in the 17th Century when nature began to be viewed as a resource to be exploited for the benefit of human progress. Nature was regarded as female, resulting in the simultaneous devaluation of women and nature which has been typical of modern Western scientific thinking (Merchant 1980). In European Enlightenment thinking, the taming and transformation of wild and "virgin" lands was a measure of human progress. Ecofeminists claim that gender hierarchies and the domination of nature are interrrelated. Rather than viewing nature as other, a resource to be exploited for the benefit of certain human beings, ecofeminists suggest models for living in harmony with our natural environment.
Pluralism, Socialism, Behavioralism
Efforts have been also made to present feminist alternatives to pluralism and socialism. The existing socialist perspective on international relationshas also neglected women's issues and has not paid proper attention to the oppressiveness of capitalist patriarchal systems. Socialist feminists see the core of international politics not as the struggles among nations but as individual relations hierarchically structured through gender, race, and class. For example, Annette Fuentes and Barbara Ehrenreich(1989) analyzed the feminization of factory labor and how gender oppression contributes to the formulation and maintenance of hierarchy in international system. Cynthia Enloe(1989) analyzed the role of women in international political economy and pointed out how housewives perform the role of enabling the exploitation of workers by capitalists.
The difficulty of socialist feminism lies in its understanding of gender relations as class conflicts where the male oppresses and exploits the female by alienating her from the wage labor and forcing her into the unpaid domestic labor. It sees the family as the basic unit of oppression of women, which naturally leads to the conclusion that in order for women to be liberated the family needs to be destroyed. And that is a serious moral and philosophical problem. In the realities of socialist countries, women suffer from the double burdens of domestic and outside labor, while the family breaks down and a series of new women's problems are created.
Behavioralism is also found to be gendered. Behavioralism tend to conceptualize national power into the categories of traditional political, economic, and military fields, which is typically masculine. It is obssessed with rigid scientific objectivity and tends to neglect the systematic treatment of the issues of ethics and social justice, which also reflects the characteristics of masculine bias.
Women in Development
Another form of feminist criticism that comes from the non-Western world, is the "women in development" literature. The United Nations Decade for Women greatly increased the awareness of global gender dynamics. The "women in development" literature is probably the most gender-sensitive research. Usually from the vantage point of socialism, nationalism, and feminism, the non-Western feminism criticizes the development model of the West and pursues an alternative form of development for the genuine improvement and security in the lives of women.
Since Ester Beserup wrote in 1970 that a Western model of development resulted in the deteriorated status of women, many studies have been done on women and development, from earlier emphasis on welfare policies, fulfilment of basic needs, equal opportunity and efficiency to the recent focus on self-empowerment of women. Here power is defined as women's capacity for self-reliance, rights to independent decision making in life, and participation in social change through control over resources
rather than the control over the other people.
The following is the statement by DAWN.
The world and international relations that we aim at are the ones without discrimination based on class, gender, or race. We want a society that guarantees basic rights to basic needs and that eliminates poverty and violence. Everyone should be encouraged to develop their full potential and creativity. Women's "nurturing" and "solidarity" should become the characteristics of human relations. The reproductive power of women should be redefined, and childrearing should be shared by men and women and society. This vision can be fulfilled through the self-empowerment of women (DAWN 1985).
It is to be noted that in the post-Cold War era as the religious fundamentalism is on its ascendence such an extent as to make Huntington's "Clash of Civilization" argument appear plausible, the feminists in the non-Western world have begun an attack on religious fundamentalism. The Platform for Action adopted at the Beijing Fourth World Conference on Women declares in in paragraph 25 that "any form of (religious) extremism may have a negative impact on women and can lead to violence and discrimination."
Conclusion
Feminism has contributed to decomposing the existing international relations theories by showing their deep-rooted male centered characteristics. Feminist alternatives, if carefully developed, will surely contribute to the more balanced development of theories by suggesting alternative perspectives lacking in male's.
It will be increasingly so in the future. In the post-Cold War international systemk, there have been increasing tendencies to form reginal blocs and move toward increasing economic interdependence.
Now the capacity for positive sum games to achieve common goals through the cooperation of governmental as well as nongovernmental actors will prove more efficient than the concept of power defined in terms of conflict and control. What is important in the future international relationsis not who has power over who, but who can exercise leadership for the welfare of the whole community, and that is what women's leadership can provide.
However it does not mean blindly accepting the Western feminism. Questions should be raised as to how much valid it is to present women's perspectives in terms of gender or in terms of other non-gendered concepts such as idealism, moralism, pacifism, and pluralism. Feminism is not ready to explain non-gendered area of human understanding. Gender seems to be the only one of many factors that influence a human perception of international relations. The relative impact of gender in relation to other variables needs to be clarified. Also, the feminist approach tends to limit the scope of research to the impact of patriarchal system on women, thereby excluding the impacts international relations has on women other than patriarchal oppression and discrimination.
With that limitation in mind, feminism can bring a fresh new insight into the masculine nature of international relations in Korea.
Korean domestic and international politics in the past have been strongly male dominant, and more precisely military minded.
In domestic politics, military authoritarianism and the rapid development without much concern for the quality of life were the results of the patrarchal political culture of Korea. Consider drastically unbalanced development of the nation. Although Korea has achieved rapid growth in national GNP, the development model in the past has not paid enough attention to the quality of life of people. Korea is still struggling to move away from authoritarianism, but the efforts will be in vain unless the problem of traditional Confucian shauvinism toward female is solved.
The distorted and unbalanced development in the past was largely due to the alienation of women from the nation's public life.
In international relations, foreign affairs were conducted on the masculine understanding of the world in masculine ways. Korea has been too much dependent on the United States, which the male political leaders considered as a big brother countries to whom it had to depend upon and be loyal to, which will pay back with benevolence in the state relations. During the Cold War years, the military male leaders were obssessed with security, black and white
kind of thinking and rigid confrontation with North Korea. There was very little room for the capacity to compromise, cooperate and bring about peace. And Korea often times remained indifferent to many other smaller nations in the world.
The so-called realistic paradigm which dominated the foreign policy of Korea needs to be balanced with new concerns for higher values. It is an urgent task of Korea to bring about fundamental transformation in its international relations, its basic outlook or worldview including premises about security. It needs to move away from dependence on superpowers, obessession with security and "high politics" and economic gain, and start paying more attention to its role as a leader in promoting the quality of life, environment, human rights, cooperation, morality and peace in regional and global communities.
And such a transformation would require, among other things, a rapid increase in the participation of women in international relations, both in theory and practice. Women as new actors will bring in new experiences and perspectives , start asking new questions, and transform the very nature of international relations.
Korea is moving toward the 21st Century with a vision of a unified center nation in the Asia-Pacific Era, and there is an urgent need to adjust its international relations theory and practice. To be a big power would require much more than mere political and economic power, and the new kind of power requires a fundamental transformation in the lifestyle of people toward a more just and moral society. The area which is lagging behind the most in the age of Segyehwa is the political status of women both in domestic and international politics.
Korea ranks the 90th among 117 nations in the world in terms of women's participation in decision making. While the average ratio of Congresswomen in the National Assemblies of the world is 11%, that of Korea is only 3%. There are 9 Congresswomen out of 299, and 7 of them were elected not through direct election but through the proportional representation list of the national district.
Drastic measures should be taken by the government, political parties, as well as women's organizations and individual women to increase women's participation in the decision making at the domestic and internatinal level.
References
Afshar, Haleh. 1996. Women and Politics in the Third World.
New York: Routledge.
Alonso, Harriet Hyman. 1993. Peace as a Women's Issue.
Syracuse, New York: University of Syracuse Press.
APSA. 1993. Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession/APSA. "Survey of Journals: Report". PS: Political Science and Politics. March.
Arendt, Hannah. 1969. On Violence. New York: Harcourt, Brace
and World.
The Center for Asia-Pacific Women in Politics. 1994. The First
Asia-Pacific Congress of Women in Politics. June 21-23,
Manila, Philippines.
Crapol, Edward ed. 1987. Women and American Foreign Policy.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
D'Amico, Francine and Beckman, Peter R. 1995. Women in World
Politics: An aIntroduction. Westport, Conn. : Bergin &
Garvey.. 1993 .
DAWN, Development, Crisis, and Alternative Visions: Third World
Women's Perspectives. Dehli: DAWN, 1985.
Elshtain, Jean Bethke, and Sheila Tobias. 1990. Women, Militarism,
and War: Essays in History, Politics, and Social Theory.
Savage, Md.: Rowman and Little Field.
Elshtain, Jean Bethke. 1974. "Moral Woman and Immoral Man: A
Consideration of the Public-Private Split and Its Political
Ramnifications." Politics and Society 4.
Enloe, Cynthia. 1990. Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making
Feminist Sense of International Politics. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Enloe, Cynthia; Buvinic, Mayra; and Ydelman, Sally. 1989.
Women, Poverty and Progress in the Third World.
Washington, D.C. : Foreign Policy Association
Foot, Rosemary. 1990. "Where are the Women? The Gender
Dimension in the Study of International Relations." Diplomatic History 14(4): 615-622.
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory
and Women's Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Grant, Rebecca. 1991. "The Sources of Gender Bias in International
Relations Theory". In Grant and Newland eds. Gender and
International Relations.
Grant, Rebecca and Newland, Katheleen eds. 1991. Gender and International Relations. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Gross, Elizabeth. 1986. Conclusion. In Feminist Challenges: Social and Political Theory. edited by Carole Pateman and Elizabeth
Gross. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
Ha, Yong Son. 1994. Postmodern Global Politics. Seoul: Nanam.
Irigaray, Luce. 1993. An Ethic of Sexual Difference. Trans. Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
____________. 1985. This Sex Which is not One. Trans. Catherine
Porter with Carolyn Barker. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Jaquette, Jane S. 1984. "Power as Ideology: A Feminist Analysis" .
In Stiehm, Judith H. Women's Views of the Political World of
Men. Dobbs Ferry, New York: Transnational Publishers.
Joo, Junhui. 1993. "Women's Political Leadership in the Government
Administration." In Kim, Jungsook ed. Women and Politics.
Seoul: Korean Institute for Women and Politics.
_________. 1986. "International Women's Human Rights". Women's
Studies 4.
Jung, Hwa Yol. 1995. "Body Politics and Caring as Responsiblity".
A paper presented at a symposium "Korean Culture in Global
Perspective: Phenomenology and Human Studies in Korea",
The Institute of Social Science, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
Keohane, Robert. 1989. "International Relations Theory: Contributions
of a Feminist Standpoint." Millennium 18 (2) :245-253.
McClelland. 1975. "Power and the Feminine Role". In McClelland,
David. 1975. Power: The Inner Experience. New York:
Wiley.
Mies, Maria. 1986. Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale:
Women in the International Division of Labour. London: Zed Books.
Miller, Carol. 1991. "Women in International Relations? The Debate in Inter-war Britain". In Gender and International Relations. Ed. Grant and Newland.
Peterson, V. Spike, ed. 1992. Gendered States: Feminist (Re)Visions of International Relations Theory. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Pitkin, Helen F. 1984. Fortune is a Woman: Gender and Politics in
the Thought of Nicolo Machiavelli. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Reardon, Betty. 1989. "A Paradigm of Peace". In Peace: Meanings, Politics, Strategies. ed. Linda Rennie Forcey.
New York: Praeger.
Rosenberg. Emily S. 1994. "Foreign Affairs after World War II:
Connecting Sexual and International Politics." Diplomatic
History 18 (1):59-70.
Rudick, Sara. 1984. "Maternal Thinking and Preservative Love and
Military Destruction: Some Reflections on Mothering and
Peace." In Joyce Treblicot. Mothering: Essays in Feminist
Theory. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.
Sapiro, Virginia. 1983. The Political Integration of Women: Roles, Socialization and Politics. Urbana, Ill: University of Illinois Press.
Scott, Catherine. 1995. "Gender and Development: Rethinking Modernization and Dependency Theory". Lynne Rienner
Publishers.
"Special Issue: Women and International Relations". 1988.
Millennium:Journal of International Studies 17 (Winter).
Spender, Dale, ed. 1981. In Men's Studies Modified: The Impact
of Feminism on Academic Disciplines. Oxford and New
York: Pergamon Press.
Stienstra, Deborah. 1994. Women's Movements and International
Organizations. New York: st. Martin's Press.
Sylvester, Christine. 1994 Feminist Theory and International
Relations in a Postmodern Era. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Tickner, J. Ann. 1995. "Introducing Feminist Perspectives into
Peace and World Security Courses". Women's Studies
Quarterly 3 & 4.
__________. 1992. Gender in International Relations: Feminst Perspectives on Achieving Global Security. New York:
Columbia University Press.
_________. 1988. "Hans Morgenthau's Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation". Millennium: Journal
of International Studies 17: 429-440.
Tong, Rosemarie. 1989. Feminist Thought: A Comprehensive
Introduction. San Francisco: Westview Press.
Vickers, Jeanne. 1993. Women and War. New Jersey: Zed Books.
Whitworth, Sandra. 1994. Feminism and International Relations.
London: Macmillan.
|