Editing International relations theory (section)

== Feminist international relations theory ==
{{Main|Feminism in international relations}}
Feminist international relations theory applies a [[gender]] perspective to topics and themes in international relations such as war, peace, security, and trade. In particular, feminist international relations scholars use gender to analyze how power exists within different international political systems. Historically, feminist international relations theorists have struggled to find a place within international relations theory, either having their work ignored or discredited.<ref name=":02">{{Cite journal|last=Tickner|first=J. Ann|date=December 1997|title=You Just Don't Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2478.00060|journal=International Studies Quarterly|volume=41|issue=4|pages=611–632|doi=10.1111/1468-2478.00060|issn=0020-8833|hdl=1885/41080|hdl-access=free}}</ref> Feminist international relations also analyzes how the social and the political interact, often pointing to the ways in which international relations affect individuals and vice versa. Generally, feminist international relations scholars tend to be critical of the [[Realism (international relations)|realist]] school of thought for their strong positivist and state-centered approach to international relations, although feminist international scholars who are also realists exist.<ref name=":02"/> Feminist International Relations borrows from a number of methodologies and theories such as [[Postpositivism (international relations)|post-positivism]], [[Constructivism (international relations)|constructivism]], [[Postmodernism (international relations)|postmodernism]], and [[Postcolonialism|post-colonialism]].

[[Jean Bethke Elshtain]] is a key contributor to feminist international relations theory. In her seminal book, ''Women and War'', Elshtain criticizes gender roles inherent in mainstream international relations theory. Particularly, Elshtain decries international relations for perpetuating a tradition of armed civic culture that automatically excludes women/wives.<ref name=":12">{{Citation|title=Introducing Elshtain, Enloe, and Tickner: looking at key feminist efforts before journeying on|date=2001-12-20|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511491719.002|work=Feminist International Relations|pages=18–50|publisher=Cambridge University Press|doi=10.1017/cbo9780511491719.002|isbn=978-0-521-79627-9|access-date=2021-02-04}}</ref> Instead, Elshatin challenges the trope of women as solely passive peacekeepers, using drawing parallels between wartime experiences and her personal experiences from her childhood and later as a mother.<ref name=":12"/> Thus, Elshtain has been lauded by some feminist international relations theorists as one of the first theorists to blend personal experience with international relations, thus challenging international relation's traditional preference for [[positivism]].<ref name=":12"/>

[[Cynthia Enloe]] is another influential scholar in the field of feminist international relations. Her influential feminist international relations text, ''[[Bananas, Beaches and Bases|Bananas, Beaches, and Bases]],'' considers where women fit into the international political system.<ref name=":12"/> Similar to [[Jean Bethke Elshtain]], Enloe looks at how the everyday lives of women are influenced by international relations.<ref name=":12" /> For example, Enloe uses banana plantations to illustrate how different women are affected by international politics depending on their geographical location, race, or ethnicity.<ref name=":12" /> Women, Enloe argues, play a role in international relations whether this work is recognized or not, working as labourers, wives, sex workers, and mothers, sometimes within army bases.<ref name=":12" />

[[J. Ann Tickner]] is a prominent feminist international relations theorist with many notable written pieces. For example, her piece "You Just Don't Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists" examines the misunderstandings that occur between feminist scholars and international relations theorists. Specifically, Tickner argues that feminist international relations theory sometimes works outside of traditional ontological and epistemological international relations structures, instead analyzing international relations from a more humanistic perspective.<ref name=":02"/> Thus, Tickner was critical of the ways in which the study of international relations itself excludes women from participating in international relations theorizing. This piece of Tickner's was met with criticism from multiple scholars, such as [[Robert Keohane]], who wrote "Beyond Dichotomy: Conversations Between International Relations and Feminist Theory"<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Keohane|first=Robert O.|date=March 1998|title=Beyond Dichotomy: Conversations Between International Relations and Feminist Theory|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0020-8833.00076|journal=International Studies Quarterly|volume=42|issue=1|pages=193–197|doi=10.1111/0020-8833.00076|issn=0020-8833}}</ref> and [[Marianne Marchand]], who criticized Tickner's assumption that feminist international relations scholars worked in the same ontological reality and epistemological tradition in her piece "Different Communities/Different Realities/Different Encounters".<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Marchand|first=Marianne|date=1998|title=Different Communities / Different Realities / Different Encounters: A Reply to J. Ann Tickner|url=|journal=International Relations Quarterly|volume=42|pages=199–204}}</ref>