Women have been underrepresented in world affairs since the beginning of the United States. Even today, when you look at business leaders, head of states, world governments, etc. the lack of women is overwhelming. I agree international relations would be quite different if more women were in charge or if women were viewed with the same stance as men do. Tickner explains that women do “break through the barrier” but are seen as naïve even if they too have the same power as the men in the room (97). With more women in international relations, Morganthau’s theory of a “political man” would be disregarded.
Women can combine politics and morals into international relations as society has built the idea that women are more cooperative than men. The male dominance in politics is due to society constructing women to be only children-bearing and regenerative while men were off to save the state and head into war. When in fact, with more women in charge, war could become less likely thus saving lives of millions of men who would’ve died in an avoidable combat. With more women in the seats, there would be more cooperation. Tickner tells the story of Sacajawea and Lewis and Clark.
She explains how “Sacajawea can change the way humans are assumed to behave in the state of nature” (99). Instead of Lewis and Clark attacking her and taking over her land, they listened and cooperated and mapped out the entire (for the most part) west. Women can change the way politics are played. They’ll be more involved with human security instead of national security.
Women at the International Peace Conference in Halifax, Canada want safe working conditions and freedom from war and unemployment in order to have a better country (97). The environment can have its chance to become healthy again as power hungry and immoral men wouldn’t be the ones in control. It should be a happy and healthy marriage and if more strong and independent women rose to power, I believe it could easily happen.