Feminist Perspectives: In an increasingly interconnected world driven by globalization, the field of international relations has encountered significant challenges to its foundational theories. One such challenge is presented by feminist theory. By questioning the status quo, the feminist approach critiques the traditional concepts and assumptions of international relations. It highlights how the male-centric perspectives inherent in existing theories have marginalized women’s roles in shaping and sustaining international politics.
Here we will explore how the feminist approach prioritizes both women and gender, positioning it within the broader category of critical theories—those that aim to explain and transform the conditions that oppress individuals. Feminist theory has enriched international relations (IR) studies by reevaluating the impact of gender and the contributions of women in the global arena. The following discussion will provide an analysis of international relations from a feminist perspective, shedding light on women’s contributions to international politics.
Table of Contents
Meaning of Feminism
Feminism is broadly understood as a collection of socio-political movements and academic discussions aimed at achieving equality between the sexes. At its core, feminism encompasses theories and practices that advocate for equal rights and opportunities for men and women. Historically, women in many parts of the world have been denied basic rights afforded to men, such as owning property, voting, accessing education, and obtaining employment. This systemic inequality, where men dominate and women face discrimination, is known as patriarchy.
Feminism actively challenges this patriarchal order both in theory and practice. Despite progress, many areas still exist where women face subjugation, including domestic violence, rape, acid attacks, female foeticide, dowry demands, sexual harassment, and limited access to education and opportunities. These issues persist globally, making the feminist struggle an ongoing one.
A feminist is someone who advocates for gender equality, and both men and women can be feminists. Feminism is a progressive movement that seeks to bring about positive change in both the public and private spheres of society, promoting equal rights and opportunities for all.
Historical Background
Throughout history, many individuals have written about and fought against the discrimination faced by women in various regions and eras. The term “feminism,” as it is understood today, was first used by French philosopher Charles Fourier (1772-1837). Fourier advocated for equal job opportunities for both men and women based on skill and aptitude (Goldstein, 1982: 98). He also critiqued the institution of marriage, suggesting that women were often reduced to the status of lifelong slaves, dominated by their husbands’ interests.
In 1949, French feminist Simone de Beauvoir published The Second Sex, a groundbreaking work that challenged the notion that women are inherently weaker than men due to biological differences. De Beauvoir argued that this belief stemmed from patriarchal socio-cultural constructs rather than any natural inferiority.
In the United Kingdom, Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) was a prominent advocate for women’s rights. Her early work, Thoughts on the Education of Daughters (1786), laid the groundwork for her most famous book, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792). In this seminal work, Wollstonecraft argued that women were not naturally inferior to men but were oppressed due to a lack of proper education. She posited that the perceived differences between men and women were not innate but were a result of the disparate educational experiences provided to each gender from childhood.
In India, Pandita Ramabai Sarasvati published High Caste Hindu Women in 1887, exposing cultural practices and traditions that discriminated against women. In 1905, Begum Rokeya released Sultana’s Dream, a utopian feminist novel set in a science fiction-like world where women are scientists, pilots, and engineers. This narrative reverses traditional gender roles, dismantling the myth of male superiority and envisioning an alternative reality where women hold power and authority.
Distinction between Sex and Gender
Feminist scholars draw a clear distinction between sex and gender. Sex refers to the biological and physical characteristics of a person, while gender is shaped by social and cultural influences and upbringing. Sex is considered a natural, physical attribute, whereas gender is a socially constructed concept.
For instance, when a child is born, their sex is identified based on physical attributes such as genitalia. This biological identification often dictates how the child is treated by family and society. If the child is female, she might be dressed in pink and given dolls to play with, while a male child might be dressed in blue and given toy guns. Girls are typically taught domestic skills, while boys are not subjected to the same training. Girls are often encouraged to be shy and soft-spoken, while boys are taught to be assertive and resilient. Boys are discouraged from expressing emotions like crying, as it is considered a feminine trait. These societal expectations shape the overall development and personality of the child, forming their gender identity based on societal norms rather than inherent characteristics.
Gender is further divided into the concepts of masculinity and femininity. Masculinity encompasses traits and behaviors traditionally associated with males, such as physical strength, toughness, interest in sports, mathematical and scientific aptitude, aggression, rationality, leadership, and risk-taking. Femininity, on the other hand, includes traits typically ascribed to females, such as nurturing, emotional sensitivity, risk aversion, cooking skills, compassion, timidity, softness, and an interest in shopping over sports.
Feminists argue that these traits are not inherently linked to one’s sex but are socially constructed. With the right upbringing and education, individuals of any sex can develop qualities traditionally associated with either masculinity or femininity. For example, a girl who receives proper nutrition and training can become physically strong and mentally tough, as demonstrated by many women excelling in sports and the armed forces. Similarly, women have made significant strides in fields like science and leadership, traditionally seen as male-dominated. Conversely, men can excel in activities like cooking, often considered feminine, and can also express emotions like compassion and vulnerability.
Thus, feminists emphasize the importance of distinguishing between sex and gender. While sex is a biological constant, gender roles are socially constructed and can be changed. By providing an equitable environment, both men and women can perform tasks historically associated with one sex, challenging traditional gender roles and stereotypes.
Feminism in International Politics
Feminist perspectives began to influence the field of International Relations (IR) in the late 1980s, coinciding with the end of the Cold War. A pivotal moment for this integration was the first international conference on women, gender, and the study of IR, held in 1988 at Wellesley College, Massachusetts. Notably, Judith Ann Tickner, a prominent feminist scholar in international relations, played a key role in organizing this conference (Dara Krishna Swamy, 2012: 227). This event marked the beginning of a growing discourse on gender within international politics.
The subsequent discussion led to the publication of several foundational texts that laid the groundwork for a feminist perspective in IR. Key publications include Women and War by Jean Bethke Elshtain (1987), International Relations Theory: Contributions of Feminist Standpoint by Robert Ethane (1989), Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Sense of International Politics by Cynthia Enloe (1990), Gender and International Relations by Grant and Newland (1991), and Gender in International Relations by Judith Ann Tickner (1992). These works spurred the establishment of feminist courses on gender and international politics in universities worldwide. Additionally, the Feminist Theory and Gender Studies Section (FTGS) of the International Studies Association (ISA) launched the International Feminist Journal of Politics (IFJP) in 1999, further cementing the role of feminist perspectives in the field.
Feminist perspectives in international politics emphasize the importance of gender as a central category of analysis. These perspectives reveal that masculinity and femininity are relational and hierarchical concepts, where masculine traits are often considered superior, and feminine traits are deemed inferior. This hierarchy manifests in dichotomies such as rationality (masculine) versus emotion (feminine), strength versus weakness, public versus private, objectivity versus subjectivity, and protector versus protected.
Feminist IR scholars argue that these gendered categories deeply influence the theory and practice of international relations. They demonstrate how traditional gender norms have shaped both the discourse and the practice of IR, affecting key areas such as war and peace, diplomacy, security, and the global economy. By uncovering these biases, feminist scholars advocate for a more inclusive and equitable approach to understanding and engaging with international politics.
Critique of the Realist Paradigm
Judith Ann Tickner’s seminal 1988 article, Hans Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation, provides a critical feminist analysis of the realist theory in international politics. The opening line of her article states, “International politics is a man’s world, a world of power and conflict in which warfare is a privileged activity” (Tickner, 1988: 429). Tickner highlights how diplomacy, military service, and security issues—central to the practice of international relations—have traditionally been male-dominated fields. Despite the increasing presence of women in these areas, they are still largely perceived as requiring masculine traits.
Tickner systematically critiques Hans J. Morgenthau’s six principles of political realism. Morgenthau’s framework suggests that politics is governed by objective laws rooted in human nature, defines national interest in terms of power, argues that moral principles do not apply to state actions, and maintains that the political sphere is autonomous (Morgenthau, 1948).
Tickner challenges each of these principles:
- Objectivity and Human Nature: Tickner contends that objectivity is often linked with masculinity, overlooking the dual nature of human beings as both masculine and feminine.
- National Interest and Power: She argues that national interest is a multifaceted concept that should not be solely defined by power. Global cooperation is often necessary, and interest should be considered in broader terms.
- Definition of Power: The traditional view of power as domination (“power over”) needs to be expanded to include collective empowerment (“power with”).
- Separation of Politics and Morality: Tickner rejects the notion that political action can be divorced from moral considerations, emphasizing the importance of integrating moral principles into international relations.
- Moral Aspirations and Universality: While agreeing that the moral aspirations of one country cannot be universally applied, she stresses the need for shared moral elements to foster an international community.
- Autonomy of the Political Sphere: Tickner critiques the emphasis on political autonomy, which she argues is inherently exclusionary and often associated with masculinity. This focus marginalizes issues traditionally viewed as feminine.
Tickner’s analysis reveals how the discipline of international relations has prioritized masculine concepts such as power as domination, autonomy, objectivity, competition, aggressive behavior, and the notion of a strong, militaristic male leader. This focus sidelines diverse actors and perspectives in world politics and neglects issues crucial to individual security, particularly those affecting women.
Concept of Security through Gender Lenses
Redefining the Concept of Security
Mainstream theories such as realism, liberalism, and constructivism traditionally view the state as the primary actor in international relations. Consequently, their approach to security is largely centered on state security, emphasizing military and economic strategies at the national level. Feminist scholars, however, argue that the concept of security should not be confined to this top-down perspective. Instead, it should incorporate a bottom-up approach that prioritizes the security of individuals and communities (Tickner, 2014: 265). This perspective highlights how the exclusive focus on state security often obscures the security needs of individuals.
Significant defense spending by some states can lead to underfunding in areas essential for the well-being of citizens, particularly affecting women who are disadvantaged by patriarchal systems at various socio-economic levels. In some cases, the prioritization of state security directly compromises individual, especially women’s, security. An illustrative example is the South Korean government’s involvement in a prostitution ring involving South Korean women and U.S. soldiers stationed in the country from 1950-1953. Scholars have noted that the South Korean government was motivated by a fear that the American military, which provided defense against North Korea, might withdraw (Sang-Hun Choe, 2017).
This situation starkly demonstrates how national security policies can translate into personal insecurity for specific individuals. In the name of national security, the Korean state implemented policies that exploited these women’s lives, showcasing the potential conflict between state security and individual security (Katherine Moon, 1997, as quoted in Tickner, 2014: 263). Feminist scholars thus call for a redefinition of security that includes and protects the most vulnerable members of society.
Rape as a Systematic Military Strategy
Feminist scholars have shed light on the severe impact of war and conflict on women, particularly emphasizing how rape is often used as a deliberate military strategy rather than an incidental occurrence. Tickner (2014: 263) notes that during wartime, women are especially vulnerable to rape and forced prostitution. This systematic use of sexual violence stems from patriarchal views that treat women’s bodies as properties akin to territorial land, making the conquest and brutalization of women a symbolic extension of territorial conquest.
Jan Jindy Pettman (1996) underscores this dynamic by examining the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-1995), where rape was used as a tool of ethnic cleansing. The strategy included forced pregnancies aimed at altering the demographic composition of Bosnia by ensuring that Bosnian Muslim women bore children with Serbian fathers, thus advancing the goal of creating a Serbian state (Tickner, 2014: 263). This practice reflects a patriarchal belief system that views children as belonging solely to their father’s religion or ethnicity, despite the biological reality that children inherit genetic material from both parents. The assignment of a child’s surname and religious identity based solely on the father’s lineage is a profound expression of gender discrimination, further marginalizing women in patriarchal societies.
Protectors Turn Predators
In her 1987 book Women and War, Jean Bethke Elshtain explores the distinct roles society expects men and women to play during war. Men are cast as brave soldiers, while women are seen as sacrificial pacifists, reinforcing the image of men as warriors and women as non-combatants. Elshtain challenges these gendered expectations, a theme echoed by feminist scholars who critique the protector-protected dynamic in wartime.
Traditional gender stereotypes position men as protectors and women as the ones needing protection. As Tickner (2014: 263) notes, a long-standing narrative suggests that men fight wars to safeguard women and children. However, the reality of war often contradicts this myth, as the so-called protectors can become significant threats to the safety of women and children. There have been numerous reports of abuse and assault on women and children, even by United Nations Peacekeeping Forces during their missions. Peacekeepers have been accused of engaging in sex trafficking, soliciting prostitutes, forcing children into prostitution, and having sex with minors (Ndulo, 2009: 129).
The first official allegations of peacekeeper involvement in sexual misconduct emerged during the UN mission in Cambodia in 1992, followed by reports from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Haiti, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and East Timor (Hernandez, 2020). These disturbing accounts have fundamentally challenged the myth of protection, revealing the vulnerabilities faced by women and children during conflicts.
War and Masculinity
The language and culture of war are deeply embedded in masculine traits, with soldiers being trained to embody aggression, toughness, and an aversion to anything perceived as feminine. As Tickner (2014: 264) notes, military training relies on rejecting femininity; to act like a soldier is to eschew anything “womanly.” Despite this, women have historically participated in combat, displaying equal or greater courage and violence than their male counterparts. During the civil war in Sierra Leone (1991-2002), women engaged in various combat roles, including commanding armed groups, using weapons, and even participating in acts of violence like looting and raping (Tickner 2014: 264). Yet, societal narratives often frame such bravery in masculine terms, as illustrated in Subhadra Kumari Chauhan’s famous line, “Khoob ladi mardani, woh toh Jhansi wali rani thi,” implying that bravery remains a masculine virtue, regardless of how many women exhibit it (Menon, 2012).
Women’s entry into combat roles within the armed forces has been hard-won, often facing resistance from military institutions concerned about the impact on combat effectiveness. This resistance highlights a broader debate within feminism itself. While many feminists advocate for women’s equal right to serve in the military, others argue that women should reject participation in what are seen as “men’s wars” (Tickner 2014: 265).
The association of masculinity with security extends beyond the military into political and academic spheres. Political leaders are often expected to exhibit masculine traits like aggression, physical toughness, and dominance, believed to be necessary for state security. Leaders who demonstrate quieter, more administrative strengths are less favored, despite evidence suggesting otherwise. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, countries led by women such as Jacinda Ardern (New Zealand), Angela Merkel (Germany), Sanna Marin (Finland), and Tsai Ing-wen (Taiwan) were noted for their effective handling of the crisis (Taub, 2020). Nonetheless, the perception of security as inherently masculine persists, affecting not only political leadership but also academic discourse, where female scholars in security studies often face challenges in being taken as seriously as their male counterparts.
Global Economy, International Politics, and Gender
The intersection of gender, work, and socioeconomic conditions varies across regions, both within and between countries. However, certain global trends in the gendered division of labor are universally observed. Women are disproportionately concentrated in low-wage jobs, particularly in industries such as garment manufacturing, services, home-based work, and subsistence agriculture (Tickner 2014: 268). Additionally, women who work outside the home are expected to shoulder the burden of household labor, which is often taken for granted by society. This “double burden” of working in both the public and private spheres is seldom acknowledged in economic analyses, where domestic labor remains largely invisible (Tickner 2014: 268).
In the context of international politics, Professor Cynthia Enloe raised an important question: “Where are the Women?” This query pushed international relations scholars to examine the spaces women occupy in global politics. In her 1990 book Bananas, Beaches and Bases, Enloe explored the various roles women play in international politics, often secondary ones. These roles include being diplomatic wives, military wives, sex workers on military bases, and laborers in sectors such as plantations and garment factories. Despite their significant contributions, women are underrepresented in decision-making roles, particularly in the domain of “high politics,” which encompasses matters like war, peace, nuclear issues, security, and trade. Although the number of women leaders has grown, most countries still have male heads of state. For instance, as of December 2020, only one woman, Angela Merkel, served as a head of state in the Group of Seven (G7) nations, a trend mirrored in the Group of Twenty (G20).
This gendered division of labor in diplomacy is further exemplified by the existence of “diplomatic wives,” who traditionally supported their husbands’ work while men dominated international negotiations. As more women enter foreign service as diplomats, this dynamic highlights how diplomacy, a core component of international politics, remains gendered.
Enloe also introduced the idea that “the personal is international” and “the international is personal,” arguing that personal and domestic life is intricately connected to global politics. To truly understand international issues like war, one must consider their impact on women, who are often directly and indirectly affected. For example, understanding the Syrian War requires analyzing its devastating effects on women and children refugees, as the personal dimension of war reveals crucial aspects of international politics. The evolving recognition of the importance of gender in international relations has spurred a series of international conventions and conferences dedicated to women’s issues.
The United Nations (UN) played a pivotal role in this regard, hosting the first World Conference on Women in Mexico City in 1975, which marked the beginning of the United Nations Decade for Women (1975-1985). This initiative led to the adoption of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1979. Subsequent international conferences were held in Copenhagen (1980), Nairobi (1985), and Beijing (1995), where the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action was adopted by 189 countries as an agenda for women’s empowerment. The 2020 anniversary of the Beijing Platform emphasized both progress in gender equality and the recognition that full gender equality remains unrealized.
The Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), established in 1946 as a functional commission of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), remains dedicated to promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment. In 2010, the UN General Assembly created UN Women, a dedicated entity to support the CSW’s work and engage civil society in advancing gender equality.
Conclusion
Feminism has introduced alternative perspectives on central issues in international politics, such as war and peace. It challenges the traditional view that the state is the sole significant actor, instead highlighting the importance of a diverse range of non-state actors and the relevance of individual experiences, particularly those of women and men. Feminist critiques of the realist theory of international politics are grounded in uncovering the gendered assumptions that underpin realist notions of power and security. In doing so, feminism aligns itself with other theoretical critiques of the realist paradigm.
Feminism has redefined the concept of security, expanding it beyond state-centric concerns to include the elimination of all forms of violence at both the international and interpersonal levels. This expanded understanding encompasses economic empowerment, freedom from physical and emotional abuse, and the need to address the specific vulnerabilities women face in these areas. The international feminist movement has also emphasized the importance of gender mainstreaming, a strategy that encourages evaluating policies and organizational structures through the lens of gender equality at all stages.
Feminist scholars have significantly contributed to the theory and practice of international politics by shedding light on how the discipline has historically overlooked women’s issues. By examining how concepts of masculinity and femininity shape the functioning of international relations, feminist scholars have broadened and enriched the scope of the field, bringing new insights into both theory and practice.
References
- Beasley, Chris. (1999). What is Feminism? An Introduction to Feminist Theory. London: Sage Publications.
- Benhabib, Seyla. (1992). Situating the Self. Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Dara, Krishna Swamy. (2012). “Feminism.” In Basu (Ed.), International Politics: Concepts, Theories and Issues (pp. 221-247). New Delhi: Sage Publications.
- Elshtain, Jean Bethke. (1987). Women and War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Enloe, Cynthia. (2014). Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making a Feminist Sense of International Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Kasturi, Leela and Mazumdar, Vina. (1994). Women and Indian Nationalism. New Delhi: Vikas Publications.
- Menon, Nivedita. (2012). Seeing Like a Feminist. New Delhi: Zubaan.
- Ndulo, Muna. (2009). “The United Nations Responses to the Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Women and Girls by Peacekeepers During Peacekeeping Missions.” Cornell Law Faculty Publications, Paper 59, 27(1), 127-161.
- Sang-Hun, Choe. (2017, January 20). “South Korea Illegally Held Prostitutes Who Catered to G.I.s Decades Ago, Court Says.” The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/world/asia/south-korea-court-comfort-women.html
- Taub, Amanda. (2020, May 15). “Why Are Women-Led Nations Doing Better With Covid-19?” The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/15/world/coronavirus-women-leaders.html
- Tickner, J. Ann. (1988). “Hans Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 17(3), 429-440.
- Tickner, J. Ann. (2014). “Gender in World Politics.” In Baylis, Smith, and Owens (Eds.), The Globalization of World Politics (pp. 258-273). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Wollstonecraft, Mary. (1792). A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Sweden: Wisehouse Classics.