To what extent are theories of international relations dominated by masculine values?

Well, nations are based on the concept of individual and personal sovereignty, and the concept arose to its current stature under the aegis of Western values and concepts of organisation rather tha the occupation of a territory simply by being in place there. Under that aegis concepts such as general good and optimum use of resources and so forth within a defined area became the 'norm', as did the approach of non-intervention into national issues, which is a pillar of international relations.

As before many times - no nation has a 'right' to intervene in the internal affairs of another UNLESS there is a clear mandate, which can be created by the existence of a State of War, or by a United Nations vote to impose sanctions - such as in Bosnia, Iraq, etc.

Some have compared the feminine approach to the world as being a 'hive mind', which may (or may not) encapsulate their approach - which, if left unchecked, would result in total chaos and disorder, and the ruination of civilisation as we know it. When there is no recognition of national borders and national soverignty, such as occurs in both Islamism and Feminism (hmmmm, you say?), there exists a reduction of stability and of guarantees of personal safety and security within a nation so affected - which is one reason Islamism has been rejected by many Muslim countries and remains a fringe element.

(I can hear the ladies multi-tsking over this... tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk)......

Islamism, Feminism and many other -isms can be likened to the concept of 'regional' identity - such as the Asian Pacific Region, which, rather than being defined as a geographic location, is more clearly and closely defined by its activity and interaction of participants. Thus Britain can be a part of the Asia Pacific Region, but NOT the Asian Pacific Basin. Capisce?

This is becoming a grey area with such things as Islamism, Feminism and so forth - which equally seek the removal of and abolition of national borders - and this development of a 'grey area' is one in dire need of correction, lest it de-stabilise without offering a viable alternative.

Current approaches (masculinist values?) tend to veer away from conflict and deliberate disintegration of cultures/societies etc** - I say 'deliberate' since the impact of geopolitical activity can have unplanned outcomes such as impacting on cultures etc.

So - the definition of national soverignty, which leads to national identity, use of resources, and so forth, is beneficial overall in the operation of a world. Thus, the approach deemed to be that of masculine values appears, at first glance and without any evidence to suggest otherwise, to be the best available AT THIS TIME.

It may need some refining and re-defining, but that is a different issue, and like 'bringing down the patriarchy' - for feminists 'bringing down masculinist values in international relations' is a no-go since they simply seek to supplant men in the higher spots within the same patriarchy (or international relations network), and thus the same applies to international relations. SSDD.

** Why then are 'masculinist values' ALWAYS viewed as being 'wrong' - when the outcomes are right in front of the observer? Without those 'Masculinist Values' of A Few Good Men And Women - we would be living in eternal conflict and would have no rights, since it is those very values that have generated for us all our current standing as Free Persons (there are still hiccups)?.

according to feminists there is no such thing as "masculine" or "feminine" values - they say it all has to do with upbringing and "gender constructs" (to coin one of their catchphrases). Which means that if women ran the world it wouldn't be much different.

So it really depends on who you ask.