Feminism GOOOO

When I read Enloe’s Conclusion: The Personal is International I can’t read more than ten lines without wanting to tear apart the article, figuratively and literally. I was skeptical of feminist arguments prior to the reading; I believe looking at the role and position of women in international politics to be a good and important lens of analysis, but not as the preeminent explanation for why the world is the way it is. After reflecting on Enloe’s argument I came to my own conclusion; I am still not a feminist. Much like Chris, I found the arguments to be unfounded and obscure.

The “international is personal” motif makes sense as it implies that private relationships and personalities have the ability to affect foreign affairs (ie look at Bill Clinton’s new role as an “ambassador” to the world- people love his personablity, he is trying to reshap eour image aka pull support Hillary…). Enloe’s next argument then goes about saying diplomats need wives to provide them with unpaid services so they can build relationships with other diplomats. First of all, what the heck does that have to do with the previous assertion? Secondly, wives are not political pawns of their husbands. What about female diplomats- do their husbands provide unpaid services so their influential spouse can build relationships?

When have women ever been taught that international politics is too remote and complex for the female mind to comprehend? Where do we hear femininity’s values are weak and illegitimate? How and why have prominent female leaders’ decisions been twisted so that they are deemed manly? I may be an outlier, but I’m not hearing it from the academic pulpit. And I certainly don’t ACTUALLY see it playing out in the international system.

Enloe ends with saying that feminism will bring about a more realistic approach to international politics. I’m trying not to chuckle. I feel feminist theory is anything but a realistic analysis of the system.