Feminism, The Newest Trend

http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2014/9/emma-watson-gender-equality-is-your-issue-too

On September 20^th, 2014 Emma Watson gave a speech at the UN, and launched the campaign “HeForShe”. This speech garnered a lot of media attention and the campaign is already proving successful in changing the stigma on the word “feminism”. The campaigns main focus is gathering support from men to end gender inequality and to end the stigma on the word “feminism”.  Feminism has now, in a way, become “trendy”. This is a strange thought to some because the ideas behind feminism are simple and in no way “trendy”, but the media’s reaction to Emma Watson’s speech have proved such notion. The support that the campaign is garnering is wonderful and a definite step in the right direction, but it does leave some questions as to whether people are picking up the true message and will actively abide by it.

Personally, I identify as a feminist, and I always have. My entire life I’ve been surrounded by powerful women who were extremely successful both professionally and personally. There has never been a disconnect between being taken seriously and maintaining ones sense of stereotypical femininity. But, I have never stated that I am a feminist without receiving some backlash. This word has somehow developed a strong negative connation to it, with women and men alike subscribing to the “humanist” movement that has the same belief system of feminism. The idea of feminism is inherently simple; it’s the belief that women have the right to the political, social, and economic equality to men. Living in a world where everyone subscribed to feminism would be ideal, but it is certainly not a reality.

The idea behind the political philosophy of feminism is very idealistic, and almost too good to be true. In a world where every state views one another with the same amount of respect can garner ease of trade and intellectual growth. With feminism comes more natural cooperation between states and a higher level of tolerance between cultural norms. Cooperation is one of the key points in feminism because it comes from a non self-interest standpoint. Most states will cooperate with one another if it will benefit their own state in the long run, but in a feminist world states cooperate for the sake of cooperation.

            The practice of feminism is almost entirely similar to constructivism. This lead myself to come to the conclusion that the we are living in a very large gender gap that an entire “new” way of thinking must be brought about to include women in a philosophy that more or less promotes the same ideals. This is not to say that feminism is a copy cat, but to draw attention to two ways of political philosophy that say the same thing-but one includes women. This is the main point of feminism that an entire new philosophy had to be created just to include the other sex. States are typically gender as female, similar to boats or cars, but when they are actively making choices in the global community they suddenly are seen as more masculine identities.

            The only downfall of feminism is that it’s similarities to constructivism can be viewed as unoriginal. But that is it’s main strength, while including women in the political realm, this idealistic way of thinking could be put into practice. Feminism is not new, or trendy. It is a belief system that has been in place long before Cleopatra.

Global Issue, Global Response, Global Action

       http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=48852#.VCg_RPldWYI

     

           The global outbreak of Ebola is an international, life threatening crisis that has overwhelmingly evoked emotions of fear and compassion. Thankfully, other countries including the United States believe a global response is critical to the public health; some say it also is a potential threat to peace and security. At the United Nations 69^th General Assembly, many representatives and leaders acknowledge that the outbreak needs awareness, initiative, and immediate action.

            Feminism is strongly present in this global call to action. As Ebola continues to take away lives every second in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, many states are beginning to take action or have already. President Obama said, “It’s a marathon but we have to run it as a sprint. That’s why we all have to chip in.” Tickner states that power is defined in more than just control of man over man; it is also, energy, capacity, and potential. Power is also shared and not assertive. The keyword of Obama’s quote is we. Every nation is involved because like President Koroma of Sierra Leonne said, “This is a fight for us.”

            I would like to bring attention to the cooperative theme thus far. Two key leaders have a common perspective to aid the suffering countries with the idea of international, collective efforts. The President of Guinea, the World Bank President, the Secretary General of the United Nations, and the German Foreign Minister are some of the many states supporting the initiative to support prevention efforts and provide assistance. The special meeting dedicated to stir discussion and action on the Ebola outbreak is essentially like coalition building. Their efforts are shared with a moral obligation to care for a country in need. Those affected by Ebola are lacking basic needs; the actions to provide doctors, medical supplies, volunteers, and troops is a feminist approach which has a basis of protecting national security and enhancing development.

            The overall concept of the United Nations is feminist. Concerns are brought to attention to be discussed as a whole and to discuss their approach. It really is a team effort with a united front. More and not really less, the power is shared and not assertive especially in this call to action. The national interest in this case is to organize a global response to aid the Ebola crisis. Other topics brought to the 69^th General Assembly are climate change and equal gender rights. There is a strong focus on collective empowerment; in other words, the United Nations philosophy could be no man is left behind. Tickner even identified environmental damage as a threat to national security. The association between women and nature really stresses that we live on this earth in equilibrium rather than dominating or destroying it. Because of the constant and consistence damage humans pose on the environment, it is now our duty to take action to survive.

            Every issue and concern is mutually beneficial, a theme in feminism. If Ebola is cured and maintained, national security is preserved and lives are saved. If equal gender rights is practiced around the world, power is shared and not asserted. The masculinity of power is degenderized, becomes dynamic, and the potential for domination is lessened. If action is taken to restore the environment, feminism as “maternal thinking” persists to preserve the life of the earth and the future of the children.

Even the word assembly seems to be feminine because of its collective definition.

           

            

Blog 1: Finding a Balance between Realism and Liberalism

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola-virus-outbreak/american-doctor-exposed-ebola-sierra-leone-admitted-nih-n213206
     
         Recently an American doctor was exposed to the Ebola Virus while treating Ebola patients in Sierra Leone. The doctor will be treated at The the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. The doctor will be held in a private room for patients with infectious diseases and is not thought to be a significant risk to the staff treating him. The article attached also features a short video where President Obama addressed the U.N regarding the Ebola Virus outbreak. He urged all countries to take action and get involved in aid of this disaster. Reading this article and hearing Obama's speech made me think about which theories should be utilized in coping with this situation. Does a single philosophy better address Arica's Ebola outbreak or would a combination of different philosophies be this best action in dealing with this problem. I thought Realism and Liberalism best applied to the Ebola outbreak in Africa.
         Realists believe thats states are self-interested and independent. They believe that states should act independently and that other states pose a risk in their control of power. Realism has a major weakness in that they don't account for context. They believe that the only factor of power relates to the strength of the military. Realism fails to address cooperative situations in International Relations. A complete Realist government would likely be unwilling to provide any support to Africa in their difficult time. They would argue that states can not rely upon each other in dealing with infectious diseases because it puts a tremendous burden and risk upon a states own national well-being. In helping Africa, they would be putting their own state in risk of contracting Ebola and it would cause a financial burden that takes away from the support of a states own national programs. By aiding Africa in their disaster a Realists state would be taking on a risk to their own power. Control of power is the central concept of realism and a true Realist would be unwilling to take on any action that might threaten their own states control of power.
         Liberalism believes that states must be interdependent and work together in order to succeed. Liberalism fails to consider power and how states cannot always avoid conflict through negotiations. A Liberalist would believe that their state must aid Africa as much as possible. They would think states are strong but together are even stronger. A true Liberalist would support Africa as much as possible in the relief of Ebola even if it meant sacrificing their own financial budget.
         I believe the best course of action in Africa's Ebola outbreak is to find a middle ground between Realism and Liberalism by incorporating concepts from both philosophies.   A state has its own priorities and must protect their own people first and foremost. Draining endless amounts of money into the relief of Africa's disaster when there are many national programs that need support is foolish and weakens a state. National government spending should contribute to the relief in Africa but not so much that it limits support of our own national programs.  Having said that, there are ways to support other states without putting a financial burden on one's own nation. By actively seeking donations and volunteers in aiding for the Ebola disaster a state can contribute to the relief of Africa without causing economic burden to their own government. States should realize that we are all humans and therefore are responsible for the well-being of each other.
       

            On Monday August 4, 2014, President Obama signed into law an act that provided Israel with $225 million to go towards the Iron Dome missile defense system. The Iron Dome is an incredible defense mechanism but its cost is not exactly cheap. Without American funding, Israel would struggle to operate the Iron Dome at the level it currently does.

            On April 15, 2013, two bombs exploded near the finish line at the Boston Marathon. It is one of the worst terrorist attacks on American soil since September 11^th. Two years prior to the Boston Marathon bombings, Israeli doctors and nurses trained the staff at Massachusetts General Hospital, where many victims were taken, on how to handle mass-casualty incidents.

            These two examples demonstrate the interdependence, a key feature of international relations liberalism, between the two countries. The two countries work together and help each other in order to gain personal benefit. If Israel did not have the help of the U.S., and if the U.S. did not have the help of Israel, both situations could have turned out to be significantly worse. Nations in today’s world should not adopt an isolationist international policy. There are so many great ideas and technology in the world today that it would be very detrimental to cut off all access to them. Take study abroad programs as an example. Students from America go to Italy, or England, or China, not just to party in a foreign country, but to learn about their culture, their way of thinking, and their ideas and theories.

            Ronald Reagan, during his presidency, adopted an anti-isolationist policy in his fight against communism. He didn’t sit in Washington, hoping that it would resolve itself. He had to be proactive in the fight for freedom against the USSR. He was committed to giving the people under Soviet rule the basic freedoms and human rights that everyone deserves. What some people may not have realized at that point was that the U.S. would also benefit from the nations under Soviet rule. Take united Germany as an example. They are the largest trading partner of the U.S. in all of Europe. Germany also contributed 5,350 troops to the War on Terror, the campaign to eliminate terrorism in the Middle East after the attacks on September 11^th.

            Another example that illustrates the point that interdependence is beneficial is the current fight against ISIL. The broad coalition of nations fighting ISIL is working together in order to eliminate the dangerous threat. Recently, the British Parliament passed legislation authorizing Great Britain to engage in air strikes against ISIL. Along with Great Britain, the U.S. and France have been executing airstrikes against ISIL in order to eliminate them. ISIL will eventually be destroyed but not because one, specific nation did all the work. It will be because all of these countries are able to come together, and work with each other to defeat them.

            Cooperation in international relations is a key component to complete any task or mission. Cooperation will benefit everyone involved. The world is a large and dangerous place and if countries are unable to work together, then they will fail in whatever they are trying to do.

Blog Post 1: Negatives of Realism

Realism believes that states are sovereign and that the basic unit of international relations is the state.  Although realism believes it’s a timeless philosophy, it fails to account for a time, place and situation for a state. All these factors mixed with a state’s identity shape a state’s actions and can change the way a state behaves. Realism doesn’t take into account non-state groups such as a terrorist organization, which is so prominent in today’s international politics. Realism also relies solely on military power as the only relevant form of power, although there are many other forms of power that effect global politics.

Realism’s inability to predict change and understand different situations also invalidates some of its points.  It may not be the case that every nation, regardless of time and place will behave similarly to another. A country’s identity will likely change its behavior. A democracy, when placed in certain situations will act differently from a monarchy or a dictator. A country with democratic values will most likely try harder to defend democratic ideals than a dictatorship will. Each state prioritizes certain actions according to its identity. A certain state may prioritize economic power or cultural power over military power. Going against the realist view of states, certain states may act irrationally or unpredictably. Realism believes that there will always be a Hitler or Stalin and situations will always lead to the same results each time. However, international politics is not that simple and state will act differently based on the identity they have.

Realism fails to acknowledge the role non-state groups play in international politics. ISIS is not a nation state but it is having a major influence in global politics in today’s world. This has been a main focus of the Western countries right now. ISIS is influencing foreign policies around the world, including the U.N. Although it’s not recognized as a sovereign state, it has much of the military power of an independent. Modern warfare isn’t just waged between states; it’s also waged between a state and an organization. Future warfare may be large organizations against one another. This could be companies, international organizations such as the European Union, or could be large terrorist groups against one another. This refusal to acknowledge non-state organizations also stems from the fact that realism is not open to a changing world.

Realists believe that all nations want power and want to dominate. Since realist power is based on military, realists believe that the state with the most military is the most powerful. However, countries like Germany or Japan are seen as having a lot of power without much of a military. They have economic and cultural influence and are seen as major powers in the world. It would be very difficult for a country to invade and conquer Japan or Germany, proving that there can be power without having a large military.  In certain situations, a state might not seek to gain military power. It may be beneficial for a state to not have a military. This is true of countries like Iceland or Monaco and shows that a country can function without having a military even though it would be considered powerless according to realists.

Realism has a sound logical argument but oversimplifies too many complicated parts of international relations. It does not account for change in the world and especially does not account for modern day issues such as terrorism. Realism’s beliefs give a negative insight into human nature when in reality, international relations issues are far more complicated than realist beliefs. 

Shahzeb Asim