Feminists, It Is Time To Get Real(ist)

In the field of international relations, one can easily uphold or condemn any given ideology, be it realism, liberalism, constructivism, or any of their variations.  However, regardless of one’s philosophical leanings, in order to maintain a sense of perspective, it is important to acknowledge the existence and functionality of other theories. Unfortunately, in her article  "A Critique of Morgenthau's Principles of Realism," author J. Ann Tickner fails to acknowledge the utility of theories other than her own.  While Tickner is correct in her assertion that the concept of political realism lacks any notion of femininity, she fails to address the fact that opposing political theories in foreign affairs and international relations, including liberalism and constructivism, embody characteristics that are more traditionally considered feminine. To her credit, Tickner thoroughly addresses the shortcomings of Morgenthau’s theory, including its lack of insight and drive towards cooperation (traditionally perceived as “feminine” qualities).  However, she also turns a blind eye to the overwhelmingly feminine underpinnings presented in opposing theories of international relations and foreign affairs.  
It is this tunnel vision on the part of Tickner that weakens her argument. She claims that, “the exclusion of women (from international relations) has operated…through a process of self selection which begins with the way in which we are taught international relations” (Tickner). Tickner goes on to focus primarily on the teachings of the theory of realism, the notion that a state is only concerned with its own success.  In Tickner’s view, realism casts states as power hungry and consumed with control, aiming only to be objective and bereft of moral influence. It is these qualities, so commonly perceived as masculine in Western culture, which Tickner claims to be off-putting to women interested in the field of foreign affairs and international relations. However, scholars exposed to even the fundamentals of international relations are privy to theories that Tickner regards as feminine. More specifically, it is clear that realism is a stark contrast to the more forgiving theories of liberalism and constructivism. Liberal theories of international politics, economics, and culture all aspire towards the mutual benefit of states, in addition to the exchanges of cultural customs and trade, while constructivist theorists are proponents of communities and the preservation of cultural norms and rules. Both of these theories embody the feminine qualities of communication, mutual benefit, and dynamic objectivity necessary for a state’s success. And yet, Tickner seems to ignore these two other commonplace theories of international relations in favor of an unwavering and uncomplicated condemnation of realism.
In any social science, it is difficult to differentiate between fact and opinion; objectivity is rare.  Given this fact, an open mind is imperative in order to pursue equality in any given field. International relations are no different, and while J. Ann Tickner may relay the fact that realist theories are relentless in their masochistic pursuits, one theory does not negate the possibilities of an entire field. Though evidence exists that feminine qualities are strongly absent from realist theories, Tickner fails to acknowledge another the reality of international relations: feminine qualities are abundant in a variety of alternate views.