96 CHAPTER THREE ■ InternatIonal relatIons theorIes
argue for greater participation of women in national and international decision making,
and in economic life. Liberal feminists, for example, call for developing orga nizational
policies that affect women, especially the role of women in economic development,
women as victims of crime and discrimination, and women in situations of armed
conflict. For too long, states have neglected these issues.
Radical feminists critique international relations theories as well. Unlike other rad
icals, who point to the structure of the international economic system as determinant
of international relations, radical feminists define the prob lem as overarching patriar
chy. The patriarchal system permeates national and international systems; for example,
making war seem desirable or rational. Until this system is changed, war will always
be more likely, and women will always be in a subservient position— the victims of a
neoliberal cap i tal ist model of economic governance, exposing poor women to the rav
ages of global competition.
Feminist critics are also found among social constructivists, postmodernists, and
critical theorists. To these feminists, studying gender involves more than just counting
women in elite positions or cata loging programs targeting women. Just as constructiv
ists more broadly assert, the meaning of things is established, supported, and changed
through a pro cess of social interaction called discourse.
According to J. Ann Tickner, for example, classical realism is based on a very
limited— indeed, masculine— notion of both human nature and power. She argues
that human nature is not fixed and unalterable; it is multidimensional and contex
tual. Power cannot be equated exclusively with physical control and domination.
Tickner thinks that all international relations theory must be re oriented toward a
more inclusive notion of power, in which power is the ability to act in concert (not just
in conflict) or to engage in a symbiotic relationship (instead of outright competition).
In other words, power can also be a concept of connection rather than one only of
autonomy.^28
For Tickner, as well as many other feminist scholars, such as Cynthia Enloe and
Christine Sylvester, discourse has been dominated by a narrowly male perspective. This
domination affects not only the issues IR theorists and policy makers consider impor
tant, but also the very standards by which a given policy is thought to be effective or
in effec tive. For example, if we want to understand violent conflict in terms of inten
sity, we may think that the number of combatants killed constitutes a sound mea sure
of how impor tant a given conflict is. Yet feminist IR scholars have pointed to rape as a
serious cost of conflict that does not often result in a physical death. By privileging
deaths in conflict over rape, we discount the true costs and consequences of a violent
conflict such as a civil or interstate war. Paying little attention to the voices of women
affects the kinds of questions we ask and the way we evaluate the answers.
Tickner has also pointed to the masculinization of many aims of foreign policy.
For example, to the extent males tend to frame prob lems as dichotomous, gender sug