Gender Discrimination - Really a Thing of the Past?

Today, we live in a world that constantly reminds us that, “all men are created equal”. It’s written in the Bible and emphasized in the Constitution, so it must be true, right? Wrong. While this sounds great at face value, this is far from realistic and sadly never will be. If we take into consideration any aspects of society whether it is race, religion, language, level of education, economic status or sexual orientation, there are numerous characteristics that allow others to treat others differently. This is our society’s reality. Even if the world believes that all men are created equal, what about women? They have progressively made great strides towards equality, but we still live in a world where the worth of women is measured in their physical appearances instead of their intellectual contributions.

The demand for International Relations scholars is continuously rising and wanting to broaden its range. Women are demonstrating an abundant interest in the IR world and all that it has to offer, but the IR scholars refuse to accept their influence. “Women now receive political science degrees in record numbers, but female representation among political science faculty still lags behind that of many other disciplines,” (Maliniak). The unforgiving underestimation of the women intellect bolsters the increasing gap between the males and the females. Although research has shown that women in IR are more junior and less likely to hold tenure than their male counter parts, it is not a reason to keep women underrepresented in this field. According to the 2006 Teaching, Research, and International Politics (TRIP) Survey, the IR staff is made up of 77% male and 23% female (Maliniak). Women comprise a minority at every level of the profession, but they are most scarce at the full professor level: Only 17% of political science professors and 14% of IR professors are women (Sedowski and Brintall 2007). Reasons why women trail their male colleagues in the job area of IR are all hypotheticals; maybe women are not prominent as professors because of their beliefs, because of their softness, or because of the way they deal with issues. There are no facts to prove that men are more qualified for the job.

A perfect example of this claim comes in play when themes of conflict and security in the Caribbean come into play. These kinds of themes have attracted an abundance of scrutiny from the female scholars, who seem to have a particularly strong masculine bias. Scholars, like Rebecca Grant, identified national security structures and the different ways of thinking as the sources of much of the gender bias in international relations as a whole (Grant). She argues that the initial gendered separation of society produced and exclusively male dominant concept of citizenship. As usual, the men were given the military role, which allowed them to acquire a prominent status in national life. Women, on the other hand, were invisible. They did not have any access to the state machinery and were not allowed to participate in national decision making events. “[Their] domestic concerns played little part in shaping ‘the national interest,’” (Byron). Feminist perspectives have also made an impression within the International Relations academy where one of the main debates was the Essentialist/Constructivist debate. Essentialists are those who believe that traditional morals and skills be taught to everyone; hence, in regards to women, they believe that they are caring and are more concerned about the well being of others. In this particular debate, the essentialists believe that women are more likely to be inclined towards connection and cooperation because of biological and socialization reasons. A hypothetical example of this claim is that women might interpret the national interest differently, focusing on being more sensitive to the social costs of conflict. Social constructivists, on the other hand, argue that this stereotyping is invalid and may mistakenly reinforce traditional identities and roles.

Unlike the traditional woman role, an increasing number of women have begun to join the armed forces in many countries. However, there is still major discrimination occurring in the military force. According to Joel Angle, a journalist for The Daily Campus, women are banned from officially serving in ground combat jobs, including infantry roles (Angle). Since the infantry soldier is the base to any army and women are not allowed to have such a job, it takes away the opportunity for the women to hold “positions of leadership,” (Angle). If women are allowed to be in the military and serve their country, why can’t they have the same perks that men do? Why do they have to be treated differently? I understand that the military was initially a man’s job – they needed to protect their families – but if women are granted the opportunity to serve, there is no reason why they should be treated any differently. In the Caribbean, women in the military force are used to only bring peaceful conflict resolutions rather than being used as a soldier. By doing so, the men are protecting the women and are utilizing their strengths at the same time.

There is sporadic evidence of women gaining management positions in conflict situations in the Caribbean and in the military forces that protect the country. Although women are, still to this day, not treated equally as the men, they are using every method possible to gain respect, especially in the International Relations field. In addition, the Caribbean societies have begun to realize that women are in fact an asset in conflict resolution because they bring new perspectives to light that men would not normally think of.

Works Cited

Angle, Joel. "Gender Discrimination in Military Is Unfair, Unprofessional - Commentary." The Daily Campus - University of Connecticut. 03 Nov. 2009. Web. 16 Oct. 2011. .

Byron, Jessica, and Diana Thorburn. "Gender in International Relations: A Global Perspective and Issues for the Caribbean." Feminist Review (1998): 211-32. Web. 16 Oct. 2011. .

Grant, Rebecca (1991) 'The sources of gender bias in International Relations theory' R.Grant and K.Newlax editors Gender and International Relations, Bloomington: Indiana University Press,pp. 27-40. 16 Oct. 2011

Maliniak, Daniel, Amy Oaks, Susan Peterson, and Michael J. Tierney. "Women in International Relations." Web. 16 Oct. 2011. .

Sedowski, Leanne, and Michael Brintall. 2007. “Data Snapshot: The Proportion of Women in the Political Science Profession.” PS: Political Science and Politics 40 (1–3).