This podcast-lecture explores the different approaches in International Relations feminism, its rise in the discipline, and gives some examples of research projects in the field.
Probably the best videos available on youtube. Your lectures on IR theories are very helpful. Are there any condensed notes or lecture slides for us? It will save me from going through whole videos again & again when revising (near exams).
Normative feminism deals with how women ought (or ought not) to be viewed and treated and draw on a background conception of justice or broad moral position.
So as I understand it feminism is a highly subjective view of social structures and authority and assumes that human behaviour can be engineered through legislation while ignoring biology and hierarchies of human needs without taking into account the strains it puts on individuals..
I am not sure what you mean with 'subjective'. It assumes that there are power relations at play, and that it depends on where you stand what the world looks like. Liberal feminism would go for the legislative path, critical feminism would argue that legal and insititional arrangement are unlikely to solve a problem that is inherently cultural.
As the lecturer said, the research is done on the microcosmic scale. I have yet to see feminist research that includes statistical analysis, even Chi squared tests. Statistics from elswhere are selectively quoted but used to support an existing argument. Alternative explanations are not proposed or investigated. Proofs of assertions are given by personal experiences at 1st, 2nd and 3rd hand. There seems to be no peer review, or predictions made from feminist theory. So i conclude it is subjective. If you can point out any feminist research that has any kind of statistical analysis on rigorously selected samples of a size that enables 95% confidence testing, I will be grateful if you can point me to it.
Your critiques are not about feminism specifically, but about qualitative research methods. and post-positivist reseach methodologies in general. To label those as 'subjective' as in 'not good' is silly. They are systematic, rigourous and grounded in well-established scientific traditions. Read Hollis and Smith' Explaining and Understanding International Relations before discarding qualitative research. . Remarks as that there would be no peer review or statistical analysis in feminist IR are so blatantly untrue that I will not even try to answer them.
"If you can point out any feminist research that has any kind of statistical analysis on rigorously selected samples of a size that enables 95% confidence testing, I will be grateful if you can point me to it." This is a genuine question. I've tried to find any feminist papers sticking rigorously to such standards but for some reason I wasn't able to find even a single one. I you want to convince us that such papers exist, the Occam's razor rule puts the burden of proof on you. According to your response, finding an example should be childishly simple. Response of type "I will not even try to answer them" is not an argument but an emotional sophism.
I'm a quantitative researcher, and I DONT do feminist theory research. But, running a regression does not make anything "objective or scientific". Read King Keohane Verba about the inference logic in qual-quant studies. Also your comment presents several logical fallacies and assumptions 1) There are social structures which are objective, thus you assume feminism view on them are subjective. 2) Ignoring biology, assumes that human behavior is due to "human nature" and not socialization. Prove me with peer review work and with statistics, that any of these assumptions you put forward to criticize feminism are true.
