Ann Tickner in her work “You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists,” that is, the eradication and repudiation of gender inequality that traditionally characterized the relationship between man and woman. With it also is the breaking of the glass ceiling or the “objectification” of women either as a sexual subject or an entity that can be exploited or abused. I agree this has to be relegated to history and people should move forward with renewed vigour to pursue and work as equals to build a more harmonious, more productive and better society. Women, after all, compose a half of our population, which means half the talent that could make our lives better, and half the capacity to produce. Therefore, it is not only a matter of political propriety that women should be equal to men, but also as an economic and political imperative. This however is only limited to personal, economic and societal relations, and not to international relations. Thus, I disagree with Tickner’s approach of transcending the feminist perspective to international relations.
Feminist theories and approaches just got it wrong in interpreting international relations in terms of the feminist approach. International relations cover a complex and wide array of interests that intersect with one another and require balancing, better judgement, relevance and efficacy. Resolving this complexity that characterizes international relations with the epistemological and ontological perspective of feminist body of knowledge is just too simplistic. For example, we can cite the Kantian tradition and solution as a workable approach to an economic problem such as the recent financial crisis that almost dragged the world into recession whose Kantian solution that have been adopted by many, such as Obama’s Stimulus Plan, and for most part it has succeeded in saving jobs and in general, the economy of the United States and most part of the