#genir

[sukusbrand]

Jay-z voice sampled saying #Neef -God #giveexpectingnothinginreturn #Genir

[sukusbrand]

Become a #God by subscribing to our newsletter on DLRMUSIK.com or neefmusic.com #linksinbio #god #Genir 🤙🏿 thank you everyone who's supporting #wb3 #genir on the way.

[gsdhatt-blog]

Mainstreaming GENDER - militarization

“International relations is a man’s world, a world of power and conflict in which war is a privileged activity” –Ann Tickner

            In Judith Hick Stiehm’s Theses on Military, Security, War and Women, the author speaks to the issue of looking at militarism from a gendered perspective. In the first part of the publication, she establishes that “we can participate in choosing our government; we are accountable for the nature of our military and where and how it is deployed” (Stiehm). In this week’s Seager reading, she establishes that fewer than 50 countries have ever had women as the head of state. Seager uses the example of the European Union, in which women constitute only 30% of its members (Seager).  If the government, dominated mostly by males is said to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, and women make up the majority of those affected by war, how can we establish a framework of decision making that is more representative of women? How can we benefit from mainstreaming gender into the decisions making process surrounding militarism and the application of force?

  Citizens of a democracy have the right to express their assent or dissent through the ballot. Universal suffrage for women is almost in every state. However, the right to vote is largely ineffective in the absence of participation. Parties need to make a concerted effort to include more women into their party list, not for the sake of filling a quote. Women and voters (especially females or those who stand for equality) need to compliment these efforts by getting up and voting. This is not to say that a woman, regardless of her credentials or more importantly, her political stance should get the vote. Rather, I believe that our political decision making needs to weigh the benefits of the inclusion of gender (as opposed to exclusion) and our votes should be translated according. In other words, we need to show more support for things like pressure parties that seek to include gender in their decision making process, or, ideally, show support for a suitable female candidate.

            Women are not more or less qualified to run for office; however the argument here lies in the fact that militarisation has been naturalized as a masculine phenomenon, whereby men are the key actors. In this sense, women are seen as subordinate actors in combat, when in reality, women play an integral role in warfare. Furthermore, the underrepresentation of women in positions of power, serves to ratify the fact women are largely affected by war, and further subordinated as a result of it. Without any agency, how can women make any concerted efforts to improve the ways combat has affected their lives.

More importantly,  women have for a long time have been the driving force behind the peace making process, however, the efforts have largely been concentrated outside of political office. In this sense, many efforts have been concentrated on making war more “humane”. However, the logic here is skewed for the simple fact that war is never humane, and should never exist in the first place. These efforts, that include movements to stop using rape as a weapon of war, are the by-products of a system that largely perceives war as inventible to solving conflict.

By mainstreaming a gender perspective in public policy, in my opinion, will be a transformative project changing the way in which we perceive war and the application of force.  The spill over affect of mainstreaming gender into governmental office will benefit many areas of public policy. For example, the policies pertaining to the reproductive rights of women will be more representative of actual women’s needs. In terms of militarisation, a more gendered perspective will arguably see war a last resort to solving conflicts.

Seager, Joni. The Penguin Atlas of Women in the World. Brighton: Penguin Group, 2009. Print.

Stiehm, Judith Hicks. Theses on the military, security, war and women. Ed. Laura Sjoberg. London:Routledge, 2010. Print

[gsdhatt-blog]

Mainstreaming Gender in International Relations: Discourse and Policy

In last week’s reading Cynthia Enloe, in her piece entitled “Gender is not enough”, highlighted that the field of international relations has largely been developed from a masculine perspective. Enloe highlighted a situation in which a colleague who researched girls and young women in war zones used the term “combatants” in his study to characterise girls and young women. The problem with this term is that it implies the only people that need help are those who are directly involved in military combat. In other words, a large aspect of this study highlights how women are overlooked in the process of policy and programme development, at the local and global level.

In this week’s readings, we discuss the idea of Gender Mainstreaming which discusses taking a “Gender perspective in all policies and programs so that, before decisions are taken, an analysis is made of the effects on women and men”(p.189). According to this thesis, discussed in Jacqui True’s article “Mainstreaming Gender in International Institutions”, gender equality cannot be fully realized unless all gendered consequences of policies are considered on a local and global level. The idea of gender mainstreaming invokes the principle of liberal feminism which demands inclusion on representation of women and the perspective of women.  The connection between this week and last week’s reading is that they both seem to take on a similar theme. Enloe argues that international relations is taken predominantly from a masculine perspective, Jacqui True explores the consequences behind “mainstreaming” gender into international relations. True also makes mention of various ways that feminist scholars approach mainstreaming.

            Claire Duncanson and Catherine Eschle’s piece titled “Gender and the Nuclear Weapons State: A Feminist Critique of the UK Government’s White Paper on Trident”, the two offer an analysis of how the UK governments White paper regarding nuclear warfare seems to ratify patriarchal roots of international security. From a discursive perspective, as True highlights, the dialogue in which the British government described issues of nuclear security legitimized the idea of the masculine protector and the feminine protected. The reason being, the discourse does not fully realize the gendered consequences the policy incorporates  .The consequence of this sort of dialogue ratifies the normative role of men- as the ultimate protectors, and the role of women- who, from this perspective are in need of male protection.

The connection between the three articles highlights how policy and discourse, such as the UK government White Paper on trident, has been developed from a masculine ontology. Furthermore, True discusses, although not without critique, how mainstreaming gender in the development of policy and discourse, should ultimately lead to the improvements of the subjects of policy intervention. Duncanson and Eschle drive home the idea, using the example of the UK governments White Paper on Trident, how particular discourse, developed from a masculine perspective, fails to take a thorough gender analysis into account.

The importance of mainstreaming gender in policy development cannot be stressed enough. Every policy and vital piece of discourse in International Relations has a gendered consequence. For instance, taking a gendered perspective on how peace-building would recognize that war effects girls and women in many different ways in which is effects men. Furthermore, taking gendered perspective on an important piece of discourse like the UK governments White Paper on Trident, would take into account how the use of language and discourse has very gender sensitive effects.

However, one must wonder, does taking a gender perspective ratifies a binary in International Relations between men and women? If so, what are the consequences?

Cynthia Enloe. “’Gender’ is Not Enough: The Need for a Feminist Consciousness”

Duncanson, Claire, and Catherine Eschle. “Gender and the Nuclear Weapons State: A Feminist Critique of the UK Government’s White Paper on Trident.” New Political Science 30.4 (2008): 545-563.

Jackie True. “Main Streaming Gender in International Instituions” in “Gender Matter in Global Politics”. Shepherd, Laura J.