Tuesday, December 2, 2014

The American Way (re upload)

Americans have a very big distaste for soccer. This stems from the threat of ruining the "American way". In America we have adapted football as a completely different sport. This one with different  rules and ways of playing. This type of football is said to be tougher and harder to play. I believe that this is a big way of foreshadowing how the world is today. 

Americans have grown accustomed to what they call the "American way". This is in a brief way being able to move to American and adapt to what is already here. Opposed to bringing other customs here. Implying that it will only lead to problems. This shows our problems with other countries.

Unable to adapt to another countries way of living or customs leads to problems for the United States. Being able to understand and adapt to these different ways of living avoids Conflict seeing is how we would not be looking at our way of living to be the best way of living. 

I believe that that is one thing that this book is trying to tell us. In order for the United States to avoid conflict we must FULLY adapt to different customs and ways of living. This is the key to achieving a more peaceful world. 

Monday, December 1, 2014

An Argument To Not Intervene (Re-upload)

Humanitarian intervention has become a popular topic for debate as of resent with discussion of intervention in the different aspects of the Arab Spring.  Most of the debate is centered on when it is appropriate for the United States to engage in humanitarian interventions. Here I want to take a step backward and make a general argument that humanitarian interventions are not to be done at all, by focusing on the relationship of the citizens and their state and the relationship between states.

First, it can be argued that it is not the place of the federal government to insure the protection of another country’s citizens because it should be using its resource to protect and provide for its own citizens. While this point can appear cold hearted it is necessary to get a clear and unbiased view of the situation. The citizens have a social contract with their government if that contract is not being fulfilled by a government it is not the responsibility for another government to fix it because it has no social contract the people under that government.  While individuals can act to the benefit of the people in need of intervention it is not the responsibility of the federal government so therefor it should not take place.

Second, the citizens in the government have a responsibility to themselves to be their own facilitators. If the government not fulfilling the social contract mention above it is up to the citizen of that state. If you look at the current situation in Iraq it is clear no matter how strong the nation building effort, if it the citizens are not invested in creating the new government, all the effort put in by the intervening party is meaningless. This is why it is important for the citizens be directly responsible for the change themselves that way they are invested no matter what and that results in long lasting and meaning full change in the government.


Third, bad things happen and it is not the job of one group or individual organization to fix them all. If everyone does there part to fight for the world that we as the human race want to see, instead one nation applying its ideals to every other, it will result in a better more meaning full future for everyone. 

Soccer and Immigration

The game of soccer, though played sporadically throughout the country, never truly caught on in the United States. The football industry, equipped with jerseys, season tickets, bobble heads, partnerships, and advertisements, has a much larger stake in American pop culture. This is not unique though, other nations such as Australia and India have not adopted the soccer mentality. What is unique, however, is the strong American distaste for soccer, which borders on hatred. Americans are not simply indifferent to soccer; they consider it a threat to the American way of life.
As discussed in the Foer book, How Soccer Explains the World, the feelings of many Americans towards soccer span beyond harmless dislike, and many individuals consider it a threat to the fundamentals of American culture. Though we have all witnessed this, it is hard to solidify a root cause. It could stem from a need for superiority; soccer is relatively cheap and thus can be played in low-income areas. Football, however, requires more gear, a field, a uniquely shaped ball, and is tougher in nature. The negative sentiments of soccer may come from a place of fear, and a need to defend the ‘American way’.
This mentality is not unique to just the sports world, as a comparison can easily be drawn between soccer and football and Americans and immigrants. With the exception of the initial influx of immigrants (i.e. the creation of the colonies), immigration in America is primarily met with hesitation, distaste, and in extreme cases, aggression. Feelings of uncertainty towards immigrants also stem from a place of fear of compromising the ‘American way’, as many Spanish-speaking immigrants have provided a cultural rift in the South.
The comparisons continue, as instances in the south of abhorrence for Mexican immigrants continue to appear in the news. On one occasion on July 1st 2014, 3 busses full of Hispanic children and families were met with “Go Back Home” chants as they neared California. Comparably, the possibility of hosting the World Cup in the United States was met with a similar reaction, and soccer was dubbed a “socialist sport”.  It is important to note that these feelings do not stem from a place of factually accurate and rationally conceived opinions, but rather a place of fear and ignorance.
There are many circulated statistics that combat the anti-immigration sentiment so prevalent in the United States, specifically in regard to Hispanics. Compared to other foreign minority groups, Hispanics have the highest rate of cultural assimilation. Typically, within two generations, Hispanic families are almost entirely assimilated into American culture. This fear of compromising American culture does not stand on legitimate ground, as illegal immigrants tend to pay more into the system than they take out. Illegal immigrants boost the tax system through income and sales taxes, but typically do not claim benefits for fear of being deported. These facts are provided by the Census bureau, and could help change public opinion on immigration reform.     

Much like negative feelings towards soccer, legitimate fear of immigration is largely unfounded. Soccer does help explain the world in this situation, as hatred towards soccer can be discounted as well as hatred towards Hispanic immigration. Though soccer may never hold legitimate cultural ground in America, hopefully abhorrence for a harmless sport will dissolve, and take anti-immigration sentiments with it.

Soccer and Globalization

How Soccer Explains the American Culture Wars

                Franklin Foer quotes a study done by the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association that stated by 2002, 1.3 million more kids played soccer than Little League baseball. Baseball is considered an American sport, while soccer has always been prevalent in Europe. Foer uses soccer as an example of one way Americans are trying to get with the rest of the world’s program by abandoning their own traditions. He says, “Americans are such suckers when it comes to something with a European label,” but is this really a fair judgment?

                We have discussed that globalization is not a new concept. States began communicating in the 1500’s when there was a rise of European trade and exploration. International trade volumes were also very high leading up to World War II. States are constantly changing but that does not necessarily mean they are “suckers” for adopting new culture habits such as soccer. Foer says some groups are concerned with the amount of relativism seeping into the American way of life. They believe the country has lost the self-confidence to make basic moral judgments to condemn evil. In other words, the growing popularity of soccer among upper class Americans is a symbol of America becoming weaker and not being able to make strong political choices.

                Although their points may be valid, globalization is also a way to keep friendly relations with other states. For example, the McDonald’s theory of war was mentioned in lecture which means that no two countries with a McDonald’s in them will ever go to war. That seems a little extreme but the concept is states that act alike will be less likely to go to war because their economies and cultures are intertwined. It is easier to go to war with a state when they have nothing in common with your state’s values.

This idea can relate to soccer because the growing popularity of soccer in the United States is another way we can relate to Europe or other states and keep stable relations. For example, Foer mentioned in spring of 2001, the U.S. national team played Honduras in Washington’s Robert Francis Kennedy stadium in a vital World Cup match. He says the world often views American’s as “hyper nationalistic” meaning extremely patriotic, but when Honduras fans traveled to this game, they realized they were cheering louder than any American fan. Soccer became a way for states to communicate with each other and prove stereotypes to be inaccurate.


The United States is not immune to globalization and that is not a bad thing! By accepting other states cultures, we become more connected to them which can also positively impact international political relations. Soccer should not be seen as only a European sport just like baseball should not be seen as only an American sport. Increased communication does not make America weaker but instead keeps us on the same page as everyone else. 

Urban Tribes

In Chapter two of How soccer Explains the World, Franklin Foer explains how Glasgow’s Soccer derby illustrates an example of tribalism in the modern era. He suggests that the derby’s ferocity is a way to channel frustrations, due to existing social tensions, into a twisted, yet entertaining sports rivalry. This model of modern tribalism can also be applied to the violence that was pervasive in the Boston Hardcore Rock scene.

                The structure of the conflict in the Boston hardcore scene is disturbingly similar to that of the conflict in the Glasgow soccer derby. The members of the Boston Hardcore scene claim that the scene has always had a violent culture, similar to how the fans of the Glasgow soccer teams regard the violence toward and hatred of the opposing clubs as common place. While the soccer fans had their two teams, the members of the Boston Hardcore scene had the individual bands that they supported. Beneath this there were the individual supporter’s clubs that would carry out the acts of violence and intimidation, such as the ‘Billy Boys’ (Rangers) and ‘McGory Boys’(Celtic). In hardcore there were different subculture groups that warred with each other over control of the scene. The two major groups were neo-nazi skinheads and a gang called Friends Stand United (FSU) which were pervasive in the Hardcore Rock scene. Both groups were essentially street gangs and extremely dangerous. While both side of the soccer conflict had their secular motivations, the Hardcore music scene’s conflict clearly had its political motivations with the left leaning FSU and right leaning Neo-Nazi skinheads. In How Soccer Explains the World, Foer recalls several occasions that the rivalry has turned fatal, and there are countless instances where violence taking place at Hardcore shows resulted in fatalities.

                The members of the hardcore scene share a sentiment of belonging due to their involvement in their respective groups. They found a community with common ideologies to gather behind. This is similar to how the fans of the Glasgow soccer clubs rally behind the banners of secularism, whether or not they truly hold the ideals of standing up to the knee in ‘the blood of Fenians’ themselves. Having a ‘crew’ that you belong to is the modern ‘tribe’; the fact that anyone that opposes your group’s ideals and goals will be met with violence, is modern tribalism.


Thankfully over the years the violence is starting to be rooted out of the music scene as the political tensions have settled and are being replaced with a growing distaste for the senseless violence. While we as a society haven’t truly erased tribalism yet, hopefully in the future we might. 

Monday, November 10, 2014

Mediating Mutually Assured Destruction and Nuclear Weapons in Iran



               Thankfully, the world has never known nuclear war, though eight sovereign states have successfully detonated nuclear weapons. These nations reside outside of the Middle East, but should Iran gain nuclear capabilities, the dynamic could shift dramatically. There are many potential problems with the Iran becoming nuclearized, especially regarding Iran’s oil stakes and vehement hatred of Israel and the United States. However, there is hope that the widely known theory of mutually assured destruction could help mitigate this threat. International relations scholar postulate that reciprocated nuclear weapons prevent any drastic action, as even ‘mad men’ in history have failed to detonate truly world ending weapons. Sadly, the threat of weapons in Iran oversteps the supposed benefits of mutually assured destruction, and any kind of nuclear weapons in this region will have negative repercussions for the United States.
                Iran, one of the strongest powers in the Middle East, is already a considerable source of conflict for the United States. In Henry Sokolski’s article Getting Ready for a Nuclear Iran, he argues that should Iran develop nuclear weapons, they will encourage nuclear programs in neighboring countries, raise oil prices, and increase terrorism in the region. These results pose a variety of risks to the United States for obvious reasons, and Iran’s overt and passionate hatred of Israel is yet another cause for concern. Nuclear weapons in the Middle East, not just Iran, would severely upset the balance of power and influence of the United States, as well as escalate the numerous terrorist threats in the region. There are obvious concerns regarding nuclear weapons in Iran, and it is definitely an issue requiring delicacy and attentiveness.
                The theory of mutually assured destruction maintains that two nations with similar nuclear capabilities will be frozen in a state of inactivity, as any acts of aggression will be matched and the world may never be the same. Integrating this theory with nuclear weapons in Iran is interesting, as Iran currently does not have any nuclear weapons, let alone an arsenal similar in nature to the United States. Part of the MAD theory is having second strike capabilities, or the capacity for a nation to launch an offensive attack after being attacked itself. Iran is nowhere near close to having automatic second strike capabilities, which threatens the delicate balance of MAD. This puts the United States in an advantageous position, as our arsenal is incredibly impressive and definitely superior to any Iran could develop in the near future.
                Sadly, the negative repercussions of Iran’s potential nuclear arsenal greatly span beyond the physical damage of nuclear weapons. Iran has massive political influence in the Middle East, and acquiring nuclear weapons could be the catalyst for many Middle Eastern countries nuclearizing. Continually, Iran surpassing Saudi Arabia in weapons could upset the balance of OPEC and drive oil prices up, which would severely upset the US economy. Finally, terrorism, the perpetual threat to the west, would inevitably strengthen through nuclear weapons in this region. Overall, MAD may ensure that Iran will not physically attack the United States with nuclear weapons, but the economic and political repercussions of WMDs in Iran will have vast effects on international relations in the region.            

Importance of the structure of the UN General Assembly

       The United Nations General Assembly in my opinion has a very efficient structure. Each member gets one vote. Matters of importance need to have 2/3 vote to determine a solution and all other less important matters just need majority vote. The problem I see with this is that what actually determines weather a matter is important or non important?


        They meet once a year for two weeks, in that time each member of the committee has a chance to address something. I personally think that once a year for two weeks is not enough to be 100% efficient. I believe that twice a year for two weeks at a time would be a lot more efficient. In my opinion the positives from extra time outweighs the factor of the increasing cost of doing so. 
Also I believe there should be another committee that decides whither topics are important or not. This could greatly impact the decisions of things due to the different vote criteria. 


       I believe that the current structure of the United Nations general assembly is very efficient and needs minimal changes in order to make it more efficient. I believe that the frequency of the times they meet would be the absolute best change that could be made. This change would increase efficiency drastically.

Sunday, November 9, 2014

Humanitarian Intervention

Humanitarian Intervention can be defined as a states use of force to stop a mass atrocity. The three pillars of the “responsibility to protect” are first, it is the sovereign states responsibility to protect the human rights of citizens. Second, the international community has a responsibility to assist the other states that chose to intervene. Third, the international community must use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect populations from these crimes.  
As kind as this form of intervention may seem, states also have ulterior motives. One theory is they only want to spread their own democratic ideals. Although many would believe that is not a harmful goal to have, there are certain consequences that may follow. Diplomatic interventions aggravate anti-American sentiments and encourage terrorist hostility. Terrorist organizations thrive in poverty stricken areas due to the growing dislike of their corrupt governments. When we provide funds to support their governments, we quickly become their next target of hated. It is also hard to take away funds once they are given, even if the leaders use them un-democratically. In a way, American taxpayers are funding a dictatorship.
Another ulterior motive may be that states are only looking to personally gain from assisting foreign countries in need. Of course many underdeveloped countries are in need of our support, but countries that we aid are not just chosen out of a hat. Many are chosen because of their resources such as Bosnia for their minerals and arable land, and Iraq for their petroleum and natural gas. I see humanitarian intervention as the United States way of buying the government’s official support. This backfires on the United States when the government does not share their riches with their citizens.

The essay titled, “Achieving Diplomatic Goals through Humanitarian Means,” by University of Maryland student Michaela Gramzinski created a simple solution to prevent these harmful effects of humanitarian intervention. She says, “To gain popular support of U.S.-funded programs, programs must be centered on community demands, and ultimately must be run by the community.” In other words, funding local programs in poverty stricken areas would achieve more than throwing money at corrupt governments. This policy would also work towards preventing terrorist groups from forming. Aiding local communities “creates a generally positive association between the humanitarian programs and the U.S. as a donor.” Also, there is a possibility that the children whose community was helped would one day grow up and work as a government official who backs the United States. Gaining support of the people through soft power is more effective than any other militaristic or economic action we could take. Community programs that reflect the interests of the common people can start the growth of democracy in foreign states. 

Sunday, October 26, 2014

Dealing With China

There is a clear power shift taking place in the world. China has been on the rise ever since they started their own industrialization. With the new economic power has given the ability to project themselves as a major player in the international theater.  But with this new found power a new potential threat to the United States rears its head. While conflict is not likely at the moment, it is important to take the necessary steps to mitigate and prepare for any potential conflict.

But the interesting question is; what is the most likely conflict to arise involving China? I personally think it will evolve out of the border disputes in the South China Sea and with Japan. China could easily become interested in gain a stronger hold on the south china see do to the economic resources it has. It is estimates that roughly $5.3 trillion dollar worth of trade passes through the South China Sea per year. Beyond this it holds 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Both the aspect of regulating trade and controlling natural resources make this territory very alluring. But other countries that the United States is allies with claim a number of the Islands in the South China Sea. So if conflict breaks out we would most likely be dragged into the mix.


So, now that we have decided what our conflict will look like how do we prevent or prepare for it. And what is being done right now is what I would do if it was my choice. The United States is currently shifting its military interest from the Middle East even with the trouble stirring up with ISIL, the military’s strategy wanders to a new theater. That theater is the Pacific. We are shifting our focus and looking to supporting our allies in the pacific such as, Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines. With an increased presence in the region we can deter China from becoming too bold and attempting to annex island and threaten the safety and stability of our allies and interests in the Pacific. While doing this we can focus on helping the already established Japanese, South Korean, and Philippine militaries to be prepared to take a forward position in dealing with any possible problems they might face as China continues to rise. By doing this we can lessen the brunt of the potential conflict on ourselves and quite possibly with proper strategic checks and balances we could avoid a conflict all together. 

The rise of the East

Why should the United States of America fear the rise of China? There are a few reasons. First, China’s economy has quadrupled in size since market reforms in the 1970’s. They also have become a major manufacturing center which consumes about a third of the global supply of iron, steel, and coal. Second, it is said that China’s military spending has increased 18% in the last few years. Not only do they pose as an economic threat, but now Americans are worried they can compete with our military.
            Both of these fears can be explained with a little bit of background knowledge. Of course China’s economy is going grow faster than the United States. They just started developing their markets 30 years ago; therefore, they are just catching up to our level. They are believed to have one of the largest economies because the country has a population of 1.35 billion, one fifth of the world’s population, compared to the U.S.’s fewer than 400 million. Also, China may be building up their military, but we should not automatically assume they are planning to destroy the U.S.. China is undergoing many domestic problems such as the growing discontent of rural farmers and migrants. Their leaders are putting more focus on that issue which explains why their military is growing.
            The United States should not feel threatened by China yet. We should invest our time and money into our countries education and industry so we remain more advanced. China would not benefit from attacking us if they depend on us to keep their industries flourishing. It makes me feel uneasy that they are now controlling and owning most of our industries, but that does not seem like a beginning of world domination. For example, on the back of every iPhone, it says “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This proves we provide the brain power, and they provide the work power. I prefer brain power over cheap labor.
            What worries me the most is the amount of Chinese students enrolling in American colleges. Between 2009 and 2010, 57,000 Chinese students were enrolled in American colleges. It is true having exchange students creates good relations with foreign nations, but how do we expect to stay ahead if they are competing at the same level as our youth? They can take their knowledge back to China and become better innovators than we are. However, I firmly believe every American naturally has the drive and the passion to rise above their competitors.

            I’ll end off with a quotation I found in one of the articles I was reading: “Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.” This means any form of government is going to exploit someone and we should not feel threatened by China’s growth based off of our different ideologies. 

The DPT (Dream-world Peace Theory)

The democratic peace theory (or DPT) is so tantalizing that criticizing its seemingly perfect world-view comes off as narcissistic and negative. However, the DPT is itself very far from perfect. Certainly, in an ideal world internal political revolutions would lead to less international conflict, but this is far from the case. The reality is that on a planet with 195 separate countries, governments, cultures, and ideologies, world peace may always be unattainable.
            Conversely, the DPT is not as hopeless as initially portrayed. Problems within the DPT are moderately simple but gravely entrenched, and the primary issue with this theory is the application of democracy globally. The American democracy is not just supported constitutionally, but culturally. Since its founding, the United States has upheld values of freedom, independence, and personal choice. These are not just words on a page, but deeply ingrained in the American psyche.
            A substantial problem with this democratic complex is that it does not seem to exist in non-democratic nations. Therefore, invading and militarily forcing democratic values on reluctant foreign nations may seem irrational. Logically, it is hard to justify expending time, money, resources, and American lives forcing others to adhere to our political ideology. It is somewhat ironic that this is not how a majority of presidents since Truman have felt. Beginning with the Truman Doctrine, American presidents have tended to believe that democratic nations are the safest, and intervened in a variety of places to ensure their ‘safety’. Scholars criticize a break in international affairs today and ideological goals of the future, but this is not the major problem at hand.
            Rather, the United States’ National Security Strategy needs to recognize that impressing its views on others is not the best way to approach the outside world. Cultures vary drastically from continent to continent, even across mere rivers, and it is virtually impossible to create a world in which everyone believes the same cookie cutter definition of democracy. Truly, there have been enough trial and errors to disprove this already. Continually, the American definition and structure of democracy hardly functions domestically, let alone applied to foreign nations. In our high tech age of instant communication, word processing, and around the clock access to politicians, we have had the most ‘do-nothing’ Congress in history. Few argue that our political system is healthy and functioning as planned, so attempting to apply this abroad seems shortsighted.

            In an ideal world with ideal workings, the democratic peace theory will eventually be achieved and function as best as possible. As stated by Jackson in the reading, the DPT has the most numerical and quantitative evidence backing it up. Hopefully numbers override history and cultural context and prove that world peace is possible; I would certainly love to be proven wrong.

How to combat China

I never really thought "how do we combat China?." I honestly don't find China as much of a threat to the United states. So in my opinion I don't think military action is needed at this time. If China were to do something to cross or attack the United states then I would say that military action is needed. China is behind the United states in many ways. They're behind us when it comes to military strength and technology. If the United states were to attack China it would be an easy win. In my opinion, the way to combat China is to start limiting trade with them and slowly reducing our interdependence on them. This reduces the leverage that China may have on the United States in the future. If they were to catch up to us or not. In the next 40 years there may be a chance of a big power shift so the government of the United states needs to prepare now. With more independence comes more power in the long run. If the United States is the most powerful country now, given how much we depend on other countries for a lot of our goods, then imagine how powerful we will be if we were almost 100% independent. I believe that this is by far the best way to combat a potential future shift in power to a country like China. 

Sunday, September 28, 2014

Realistic View of ISIL

The realist view of International relations focuses on importance of different states competing for power over each other, mainly through military conquest. During this struggle, each state’s aim is to achieve an ultimate hegemony over the other states. One of the largest problems at the front of the United States’ foreign policy is dealing with ISIL. The situation with ISIL is interesting, because at a first glance it could pose some problems for the realist view. There are two roads to take when thinking about ISIL: that ISIL is a state as they claim to be, or that they are a mere terrorist organization. Realists view states to be the only important players in the game that is IR, so if ISIL is a state this poses no problems for the Realist view. But, if ISIL was view as a terrorist organization they should not be anywhere as important as they are according to realism. While this may appear to be a hole in realist theory, the situation with ISIL can still be justified from a realist perspective.


The argument for why the United States is engaging with ISIL can be derived from the ultimate realist goal of hegemony over the other states. Therefor United States ultimately wants and needs to have hegemony to guarantee its security. But, this hegemony does not have to come from the elimination of other states but by making sure that you are a monolith of power that can control the other states in the international theater. The United States therefore should make decisions that would be intended to retain ‘control’ over a certain state. A good example of this is the United States involvement in the Gulf War. The United States enter the Gulf War at the plea of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, who feared being invaded by Iraqi force after they had invaded Kuwait. The United States did not want to lose their ‘control’ over Saudi Arabia, so the United States entered the Gulf War and pushed the Iraqi force out of Kuwait.  Now the United States’ ‘control’ in the region has expanded into Iraq after ten years of the Iraq War. The Iraq War has been costly and now the progress made in Iraq is being threatened by ISIL riding the momentum of the Syrian Civil War as far as it can take them. ISIL want control over Iraq to acquire a large Islamic population, to bolster their claims to caliphate creating their own state, thus removing western and the United States ‘control’ over Iraq. The threat of ISIL is not that they can directly threaten the United States, but they can undermine the United States control over Iraq while creating their own state.  The United States responded to this threat, in a very realist fashion, with fairly heavy handed bombing campaigns. So while ISIL may appear to be a contradiction to realism, after you scratch the surface and understand the motivations of the conflict you see that realism actually explains it fairly well. 

- Steve McNamara

From Tickner to Watson, it's time for equality

As an educated woman capable of critical thought, I wholly identify with J. Ann Tickner’s analysis of Morgenthau’s principles. The field of international relations, much like many other educational fields, is truly influenced by masculine conceptions of human nature, power, and morality. Reading this article is incredibly timely considering Emma Watson’s recent speech at the United Nations, which launched her new campaign centered on gender equality, HeforShe. Tickner and Watson’s arguments are incredibly similar in most ways, but definitely differ as they discuss gender roles in society. In tandem, they paint an interesting picture for the future of women in positions of power and international relations in general and call for meaningful change worldwide.
Evidence of extreme gendering can be found with a quick glance down any aisle in any toy store. There are girl toys and boy toys, and an implicit divide between the two with little room for gray area. The world of international politics is similar in this regard.
Tickner relays that women tend to be “…more comfortable dealing with domestic issues such as social welfare that are more compatible with their nurturing skills” while “nuclear strategy, with its vocabulary of power, threat, force and deterrence, has a distinctly masculine ring” (15). Gender roles are a societal norm that cast definitive shadows for both men and women, which is something both Watson and Tickner agree on.
Unique in Watson’s speech is the notion that men are just as negatively impacted by gender stereotypes as women are. Typically, masculinity is defined as powerful and emotionally objective. Tickner’s description paints this portrayal as a positive role for men to fulfill, while Watson describes just the opposite. Watson relates that she personally “…started questioning gender based assumptions a long time ago”, since the age of eight. She continues to say recount “when at eighteen my male friends were unable to express their feelings”, and how detrimental this is for mental health, stating that suicide is the number one killer of men ages 20-49 in the UK. Clearly, stringent gender roles are a problem worldwide, for both men and women alike.
Though Tickner and Watson differ in their perception of male gender roles, they both call for meaningful change for women globally. Morgenthau’s six principles have an anachronistic tone as predetermined international relations laws that will remain unchanged as time progresses. However, this is an incredibly dangerous notion, which both Tickner and Watson relay. First and foremost, traditional conceptions of power value war and coercion as primary means for dealing with tension. In a nuclear weapon ridden world, this is incredibly lethal. Tickner also states that, “The ecology movement…and the women’s movement are deeply interconnected. Both stress living in equilibrium with nature rather than dominating it” which is another concept integral to international relations today. Aggressive and wasteful international policies are not only outdated, but also unsustainable. Different, more feminine, approaches are undeniably important to consider as we attempt to create a healthier, more inclusive world for future generations.

The most important takeaways from both works are that including women in the international relations conversation can not only create a more cooperative and peaceful world, but also create worldwide freedom from harmful gender stereotypes. Tickner advocates for a new global perspective that “…appreciates cultural diversity but at the same time recognizes a growing interdependence” and “avoids conflict where possible” by taking feminine opinions into account. Watson envisions a world where “we all perceive gender roles on a spectrum not as two opposing sets of ideals”. These two powerful ideas in cooperation can truly change the international perception of power globally and free both men and women from binding stereotypes.