Journal: Gender and Fatal Attraction

Cynthia Weber's assessment of gender in International Relations is my favorite in her book so far. She makes a clear, concise argument against Adam Jones' essay “Does 'Gender' Make the World Go Round? Feminist Critiques of International Relations” (82) In this piece, Jones explains how feminist agendas have detracted from their efforts to attain true equality, and that by changing terms from “feminism” to “gender,” men will not be short-changed by the demands of equality by women. Jones makes the claim that “gender is a variable” in IR, and that the only way to have a balance of power is if masculine concerns are addressed as well as feminine issues (83). He claims that “feminists' use of the gender variable has been biased from the start against men and masculinity,” and that “feminism is unbalanced, even irrational” (88). By analyzing the gender relationships in the film Fatal Attraction, Weber takes on Jones' gender myth in an attempt to determine if the variable of gender is being placed purposefully, or if gender is a worldview, as feminist V. Spike Peterson claims (89). If gender is a tool through which we see the world, it certainly cannot be a variable to be moved around like a chess piece.

I, like Weber, have no sympathy for Dan, the movie's protagonist. From the onset of his relationship with Alex, he manipulates both her gender and his own for sexual gratification. He shows her moments of weakness (the comment about men's insecurities muttered at the bar upon their first meeting and his story about Madame Butterfly), and constantly chalks up her moments of weakness as irrational. Alex is certainly a young woman plagued by mental issues. Sure, she agreed upon a verbal contract for a one-night stand, but Dan broke that contract by staying with her the entire weekend. While her actions are extreme, they remind me of my early 20s, when I was awash with the emotionalism that comes to most women at that point in their lives. Alex had not been used the first night; she agreed to that. However, as Dan weakens beneath her pleas, he begins to give their relationship meaning beyond their contractual agreement. Throughout the movie, his reactions to her actions confused me. “Who has the power here?” I kept asking myself. As Weber explains, Dan seems to do just fine when he can keep Alex within the confines of “normal” femininity, but when she demands to be treated fairly, he has problems. The entire film seemed like a chess game, with each player counteracting the other's movements. The biggest problem, however, is Dan's inability to turn away from Alex for good. If he were to successfully reject her, she would surely call his wife and tell her about the affair. So, to keep her cool, Dan makes unmistakably bad moves, like moving in for a final hug when all the woman asked for was a handshake. Time and time again, Dan's actions lead Alex on a little further, making her a little less rational. It must be hard for her, after all, having been used for the weekend, knocked up, and tossed aside. I cannot blame her for craving the family life that Dan already has. Of course, her actions go too far, but that could've been countered by an earlier confession of adultery by Dan.

In the final section of Weber's gender chapter, she parallels the threat Alex brings to Dan's normal family with the threat feminists bring to traditional IR. She explains that feminism challenges the “norms” of IR just like Alex challenged the “norms” of Dan's family situation. When looked at this way, gender doesn't seem to be a variable at all. If Dan could've kept Alex in check throughout, then maybe gender could be considered a variable. However, gender is the view through which all of these characters see their world. Weber makes some very valid points against Jones' argument, although I agree with his re-branding of “feminism” and use of the term “gender.” If IR theory is to recognize the feminist agenda, it must do so through a gendered worldview where feminine and masculine concerns can both be addressed. Jones' argument, however, is just like the chess game Dan and Alex were involved in. It seems just when the female side of the gendered conversation speaks up, the male side must reply. To me, this seems a power struggle that could go on forever, or at least until there are more women present in IR. I don't like to call myself a feminist, but I do have a bitter edge, like Weber, when women try to make their claim for equality (equality among both sexes, not just power handed to women on a silver platter), and men respond with undeniable fear that their piece of the pie is being taken away.

Work Cited
Weber, Cynthia. International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge, 2005.