Revolution Trainee

Dear Mr. Shanahan,

I’m not a regular follower of you or the Lowry Institute, however I was intrigued by your post regarding why there are so few women who are willing to comment publicly in regards to international relations.

My response to your post will be in narrative-form, which I believe also separates the genders when it comes to discussing IR via public forums (writing/speaking style).

Initially, I would like to say that I believe, to a large degree, one possible explanation for the lack of women in public IR has to do with ideology/epistemology/approach. I am a PhD researcher at the University of Manchester (teaching an introduction to IR course); and I can say from my education in the UK and the US, the field is still largely publishing and upholding realist philosophy. I believe this to be in some degree related to gender.

My experiences with women in IR academically suggest that women find their theoretical support in areas outside of realism, searching for something more comprehensive, more related to social structure, economics, and behaviour than realist theory offers. So initially, my response to you indicates an examination is necessary of what theoretical camp the majority of public IR forums support.

Secondly, statistics continue to inform us that women are seeking education in larger numbers than men, and recently, that women are now increasingly seeking advanced degrees. And please forgive me for not providing references or citations for these referrals, however it is to further my point that not only do women have to work harder to compete with men in income equality but in educational equality as well.

As I write this, I am momentarily putting aside my own research. So ironically, I am taking time out from my own research - which is published only under a first initial and surname - to contribute to why I believe more women are ‘quiet’ in regards to public IR forums, and of course this is considered an ‘expense’ to my own endeavours.

Thirdly, and I will limit my response to three points of attention, women in the public forum are seen first for their appearance and then for their contributions. Recall the press around Condoleezza Rice and her ‘dominant leather boots’? Recall how Janet Reno was ridiculed? There are so many more examples that they are cumbersome to list - Judith Butler for example… may be as common of an reference as Naomi Klein if she looked the way Klein does. Butler’s analyses are certainly more sophisticated.

But when women speak publicly, in IR especially, they are first evaluated for how they look and then for what they say. Can you imagine? Can you imagine before anyone had read any man’s work they spoke about his receding hair line, his pot belly, his snarl, who designed his suit, how he looks on his days off? No. Most likely it is unimaginable - because this does not happen. Because its not socially expected for a man’s appearance to be attractive in order for someone to listen to what he has to say, whereas for a woman… I hope you see my point.

Though this response has reduced the amount of time spent on my own work (and for what benefit?), I feel obligated to say that your piece does reflect a certain awareness of masculine advantage (and I’m sure some female respondents will be offended), I believe it is the language (Judith Butler, Hannah Arendt, Foucault) and structure of IR that keeps women ‘quiet’.

Best wishes,
L. (removed)

PhD Researcher
University of Manchester
Politics/Political Economy