Hooper's "gender variable" (Kelsey Hunter, Week 9 Substantive)

Of all the readings so far on feminism, the one I most agree with is Charlotte Hooper's piece, "Masculinities, IR, and the 'gender variable.'" Hooper, instead of discussing how IR shapes femininity and how femininity shapes IR, focused on the relationship between masculinity and IR.

Her conclusion is that while gender is now an important variable to be concerned with in IR (for reasons such as the resurgence of ethnic rivalries and identity politics), gender theorizing can not be expected to be accepted by mainstream theorizing. Feminists and others can not expect to graft feminist theory onto mainstream IR theory and have people accept it as valid. The reason is that mainstream IR theory, Realism in particular, has always separated the public from the private and the domestic from the international. Theorizing about gender forces us to confront private relationships (as Cynthia Enloe points out) and because gender within nations is just as important in shaping relationships regarding gender between nations, we can not ignore domestic politics.

The reason I most agreed with Hooper is that I believe until feminism can reconcile their theory to mainstream IR theory, which is rather entrenched and still the dominant viewpoint, it will not gain wide acceptance or influence changes in world politics to the extent desired (which is not to say that women have not been making inroads to equality).