Hooper (42) reinforces this argument with the notion that the embodiment of hegemonic masculinity, and the perspective of elite white men who historically dominate International Relations, projects on to the behaviour of states the ideal of the glorified male warrior. In other words, perhaps the historical predominance of men in hegemony has as much to do with masculine egotism as it does feminine undervaluing.
Ultimately, it would appear that the strongest, or at least most emotive, feminist argument is put forward by Christine Sylvester (1994), who suggests that women, in the eyes of International Relations scholars, are avoided in theories in three ways:by subsuming men in themore relevant? categories of statesmen, decision makers, soldiers, refugees, prisoners of war, earthquake victims, and publics; by too readily accepting into scientific analyses the common social assumption that women are located inside the separate sphere of domestic life, where they engage in activities that have nothing to do with the usual activities International Relations chronicles and theorizes - war, crisis decision making, regime formation, trade and so on; and by retreating to abstractions (the state) that mask a masculine identity (as competitive, rational, egoistic, power-seeking). .
Despite the general anti-gendering sentiment throughout the majority of material relevant to the impact of gendering upon International Relations, there are of course, arguments that negate those put forth by feminists. Such anti-feminist sentiment essentially combines to create the realist theory, which basically renders gender irrelevant in all arguments, particularly in reference to matters of the state, encompassing issues of war and national security. Many scholars of expertise in both International Relations and gender issues such as Peter Beckman have observed such theoretical genderredundancy? throughout realist material.