|
Int'l Relations Paper Help
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Caela |
This is a paper for my Intro to Int'l Relations class (pretty basic paper: make an argument). If you don't want to read it, don't...but if there are any bored people that enjoy proofreading, any feedback would be greatly appreciated, as it's due tomorrow :) (I am not a great writer and need a good grade in this class!:nervous: )
Prompt:
“Realism is wrong. Its assumptions about the necessarily conflictual nature of the international system are based on an international system that has been dominated by males and masculinity. As this dominance lessens, the international system will change with it.”
In our global community, it appears that power is constantly shifting from one holder to the next. Or at least there are plenty of attempts made in order to grasp the immunity of dominance. Is the trait of craving power only limited to one gender? Is war necessary only because males dominate the system? Or is war completely necessary in all walks of human life? Given that in past history males have subjugated positions of leadership, and one of the oldest traditions of civilized life was to fight against an opponent when one or one’s possessions were threatened, it would be easy to assume that males have been responsible for wars, by acting on their conflictual nature.
As presented by Locke and Hobbes, human behavior originates from a state of nature. After all, we are animals. As seen in undomesticated animals, especially males, when threatened, the natural instinct is to enter combat mode. When two male dogs are thrown one piece of steak, they will fight for their individual needs. When two female dogs are thrown one piece of steak (with their pups nearby), they will fight for the meat, but will bring what they’ve earned back for their offspring. Now, humans are obviously much more evolved than our pets are, but female and male brains differ greatly. A female may second guess whether or not certain warfare tactics are worth harming civilians over. A male may be equally sensitive to that situation, but the ends may justify the means more so.
As described by Geoffrey Blainey, “Wars usually end when fighting nations agree on their relative strength, and wars begin when fighting nations disagree on relative strength.” Taking a rationalistic theory on war, or using reason instead of experience for making actions, most problems should be able to be resolved without the use of arms. For example, when adding fractions together, there is a law to follow on paper, rather than physically cutting up pieces of a pie and determining the answer that way. It is much more efficient and without a doubt less messy to use a practical method. When it comes down to it, full out war is primal.
As the human race continues to evolve, we must ask ourselves: is war avoidable? Our species is equipped with enough intellect to avoid physical conflict, yet that has not changed the fact that people continue to die for their cause, or others causes. Perhaps war is inevitable and it signifies the ultimate approach of scare tactics and persuasion. If we follow this idea further, would it be fair to say that it is not even a matter of gender, but of human nature itself? We may never know, but the world has yet to see a significant group of female leaders reigning simultaneously, so one must only speculate.
Females are generally less confrontational than men by nature. Does this mean that they would make more peaceful leaders? Possibly. Past events have led up to the fact that the international key players have mostly been men. There is no sure fire approach to world peace, but to exclude half of the world’s citizens in major decision making is certainly not the right track to eliminating conflict. The more open-minded leaders are in involving different individuals from all walks of life can only be beneficial to the international community. The more values that are respected and the more tolerance that is shown towards civilizations different than one’s own will further our global society. If female leaders were given the opportunity to rule, given the theory of difference feminism to support that gender differences do exist, this would assist future egalitarian decisions immensely. There is always good that comes from opening one’s eyes to another way of thinking. |
|
|
| Inconspicuous |
Don't use question marks. Phrase it as "However, whether _____ is the cause of _____ is open to debate [or however you wanna phrase it]."
also, avoid using 'to be' verbs as much as possible.
EDIT: proofreading now...not going to change that stuff, though. |
|
|
| Lira |
That was an interesting read. I disagree with some points, because of my individualistic background and life experience (i.e. although I don't like to separate people using gender, I've seen females being often more confrontational than males), I don't think I'd tell you to change anything.
Reminds me of my good ol' International Relations course, back in 2002 :p
edit: Oh, we were supposed to proofread... eh, I didn't spot any obvious mistake :D |
|
|
| Inconspicuous |
| quote: | Originally posted by Caela
In our global community, it appears that power is constantly shifting from one holder to the next--or, at least, plenty of attempts are made in order to grasp the immunity of dominance. Is the desire for power a trait limited to one gender? Is war necessary only because males dominate the system? Or is war completely necessary in all walks of human life? Given that, in past history, males have subjugated positions of leadership, and one of the oldest traditions of civilized life is to fight against an opponent when one or one’s possessions are threatened, it would be easy to assume that males, by acting on their conflictual nature, have been responsible for wars.
As presented by Locke and Hobbes, human behavior originates from a state of nature. After all, we are animals. [rephrase] As seen in undomesticated animals, especially males, when threatened, the natural instinct is to enter combat mode. When two male dogs are thrown a single of steak, they will fight for their individual needs. When two female dogs (with their pups nearby) are thrown one piece of steak, they will fight for the meat, but will bring what they’ve earned back for their offspring. humans are obviously much more evolved than their pets are, but female and male brains differ greatly. A female may second-guess a decision regarding whether or not certain warfare tactics merit harming a civilization. A male may be equally sensitive to that situation, but the ends may justify the means more so [clarify].
As described by Geoffrey Blainey, “Wars usually end when fighting nations agree on their relative strength, and wars begin when fighting nations disagree on relative strength.” Taking a rationalistic theory on war, or using reason instead of experience for making actions, most problems should have a resolution which does not require the use of arms. For example, in order to find the sum of fractions, one may derive the solution mathematically, rather than by physically cutting up pieces of a pie in order to determine the answer. The former is much more efficient and, without a doubt, less messy to use than is a less practical method. When it comes down to it, full out war is primal.
As the human race continues to evolve, we must ask ourselves: is war avoidable? Our species is equipped with enough intellect to avoid physical conflict, yet has not utilized that ability in order to change the fact that people continue to die for their respective causes, or those of others. Perhaps, war is inevitable and it signifies the ultimate approach of scare tactics and persuasion. If we follow this idea further, would it be fair to say that it is not even a matter of gender, but of human nature itself? We may never know, but the world has yet to see a significant group of female leaders reigning simultaneously, so one must only speculate as to the effect that such a change might produce.
Females are less confrontational than men by nature. Does this mean that they would make more peaceful leaders? Possibly. Past events have led up to the fact that the group of key players in international relations has been comprised of, primarily, males. There is no sure-fire approach to world peace, but to exclude half of the world’s citizens in major decision-making is certainly not the right track to eliminating conflict. The method that more open-minded leaders have begun to utilize, of involving different individuals from all walks of life, can only be beneficial to the international community. Broadening the range of values that are respected and increasing the tolerance that is shown towards civilizations different than one’s own, will further our global society. If female leaders were given the opportunity to rule, based on the theory of difference feminism, to support the idea that gender differences do exist, they would be able to assist future egalitarian decisions immensely. Good always comes from opening one’s eyes to another way of thinking. |
|
|
|
| Caela |
| Inconspicuous...very much appreciated. Thank you. :) |
|
|
| Frenchie |
| This was a good read! Good luck with the paper C! |
|
|
| Caela |
| quote: | Originally posted by Frenchie
This was a good read! Good luck with the paper C! |
:) Thank you! |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Caela
This is a paper for my Intro to Int'l Relations class (pretty basic paper: make an argument). If you don't want to read it, don't...but if there are any bored people that enjoy proofreading, any feedback would be greatly appreciated, as it's due tomorrow :) (I am not a great writer and need a good grade in this class!:nervous: )
Prompt:
“Realism is wrong. Its assumptions about the necessarily conflictual nature of the international system are based on an international system that has been dominated by males and masculinity. As this dominance lessens, the international system will change with it.”
In [the] global community, [] power [] constantly shift[s] from one holder to the next. Or at least [Either don't make the previous claim, or don't back off of it right away.] there are plenty of attempts [] to grasp the immunity of dominance |
I'm unclear what you mean by this phrase. Be more specific.
| quote: | | . Is the trait of craving power [ambition? can you think of a better word?] [] limited to one gender? Is war [a product of] male[] dominat[ion of] the system? Or is war [a] completely necessary [product of human nature?]? Given that in [the] past [] males have subjugated [word choice -- try "monopolized"] [leadership] positions [], and [given that] one of the oldest traditions of civilized life was to fight against an opponent when one or one’s possessions were threatened |
Reverse these clauses --> "and given that to fight against an opponent when one or one's possessions were threatened was one of the oldest traditions of civilized life,"
| quote: | | , it [is an] easy [] assum[ption] that males [are] responsible for wars [as a result of] acting on their conflictual nature. |
What do you mean by "conflictual nature"? internal conflict? inherently violent nature?
| quote: | | As presented by Locke and Hobbes, human behavior originates from a state of nature |
Locke and Hobbes have very different ideas about what this state of nature is like. Perhaps you should clarify a little bit about their specific positions.
| quote: | | . After all, [humans] are animals. As seen in undomesticated animals |
Why the distinction here? Are humans undomesticated?
| quote: | | , especially males, |
Again, why the distinction? Is there a difference in females?
| quote: | | when threatened, the natural instinct is to enter combat mode. |
The argument could be made that mothers are the most defensive.
| quote: | | When two male dogs are thrown one piece of steak, they will fight for their individual needs. When two female dogs are thrown one piece of steak (with their pups nearby), they will fight for the meat, but will bring what they’ve earned back for their offspring. |
But they still fight... right? I think you're on to something here, but there may be a better analogy to use.
| quote: | | Now, humans are obviously much more evolved than our pets are, but female and male brains differ greatly. A female may second[-]guess whether or not certain warfare tactics are worth harming civilians []. A male may be equally sensitive to that situation, but the ends may justify the means []. |
Why?? This is quite a claim, provide more evidence if possible.
| quote: | | As described by Geoffrey Blainey, “Wars usually end when fighting nations agree on their relative strength, and wars begin when fighting nations disagree on relative strength.” Taking a rationalistic theory on war, or using reason instead of experience for making actions, most problems should be [] resolved without the use of arms. For example, when adding fractions together, there is a law to follow on paper, rather than physically cutting up pieces of a pie and determining the answer that way. It is much more efficient and without a doubt less messy to use a practical method. When it comes down to it, full out war is primal. |
I'm sorry. Again, I agree with your conclusion, but I don't see how your example helps you reach it. Explain how the cutting of a pie is synonomous with warfare.
| quote: | As the human race continues to evolve, we must ask ourselves [whether] war [is] avoidable[.] Our species is equipped with enough intellect to avoid physical conflict, [really? why?] yet that has not changed the fact that people continue to die [.] Perhaps war is inevitable and it signifies the ultimate [use] of scare tactics and persuasion. If we follow this idea further, would it be fair to say that it is not even a matter of gender, but of human nature itself? We may never know, but the world has yet to see a significant group of female leaders reigning simultaneously, so one must only speculate.
Females are generally less confrontational than men by nature. |
Again, provide more evidence of this normative assertion.
| quote: | | Does this mean that they would make more peaceful leaders? Possibly. [In the past] the [key] international [] players have mostly been men. There is no sure[-]fire approach to world peace, but to exclude half of the world’s citizens in major decision[-]making is certainly not the right track to eliminating conflict. |
Even if they are women and men alike, the decision makers still represent a very small slice of society. What about the poor? Minorities? LBGT community?
| quote: | | The more open-minded leaders are in involving different individuals from all walks of life, [the more] beneficial to the international community. The more values that are respected and the more tolerance that is shown towards civilizations different than one’s own, [the] further our global society [will go]. If female leaders [are] given the opportunity to rule, given the theory [that] gender differences do exist, this would assist future egalitarian [Try "conflict resolution"] decisions immensely. There is always good that comes from opening one’s eyes to another way of thinking. |
Are you advocating an all woman leadership, or diversity?
Overall, you write really well, and have some thought-provoking conclusions. However, I think you need to provide more evidence. How did you reach these conclusions? What was the logic behind them? Are there any concrete historical examples you can use of a male-dominated system leading to war? What about a female-dominated system leading to peace? There have been women in power before... have they been more or less peaceful? The Brits on the forum may know more about Margaret Thatcher, but my understanding was that she was very hawkish and confrontational... what would someone like her do to your theory?
Like I said, I like where you're going, and I agree on some points, but I'm afraid that as it stands now the evidence you present is less than convincing.
But it's a very good base to work from.
-Grammar Nazi |
|
|
|
|
