Feminism in IR

INTRODUCTION:

In a world of increased interdependence resulting from globalization, the field of international

relations has faced major challenges to its core theoretical structure. The feminist theory is one such
challenge. Challenging the status quo, the feminist approach questions the traditional and
foundational concepts and assumptions of international relations. It draws our attention to the fact
that the masculine conception of international relations embedded in existing theories has
marginalised women's role in creating and sustaining international politics. The feminist approach
takes both women and gender seriously.

MEANING OF FEMINISM

Feminism is a movement for the social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. It is not just
about women.

The term feminism, as we know it contemporarily was first used by Charles Fourier (1772-1837), the
French philosopher who argued that all jobs should be open to both men and women based on their
skill and aptitude. He also was of the view that in a marriage, women were forced to behave like
lifelong slaves owned and dominated by the interests of their husbands.

One is not born, but becomes a woman

Simone de Beauvoir, another French feminist, published a book titled The Second Sex in 1949 where
she rejected the idea that women are weaker than men due to their biology. She argued that this
understanding that women are weaker is due to our patriarchal socio-cultural understanding.

In India, Pandita Ramabai Sarasvati published her book titled High Caste Hindu Women in 1887
where she exposed cultural customs and traditions that were discriminatory towards women. The
year 1905 also saw the publication of a utopian feminist novel titled Sultana’s Dream by Begum
Rokeya, where women are scientists, pilots, engineers in a science fiction-like plot. It depicts an
alternative reality where the roles of men and women have been reversed and, in this process, the
myth of male superiority is destroyed in the novel.

Different waves of feminism:

The modern feminist movement can be divided into four waves. The term ‘wave’ is a metaphor used
to identify the different generations of feminism and its objectives.

The first wave started in the 19th century through the early 20th century and they were mainly
concerned with voting rights, education, access to public offices, etc. Their political objectives for
bringing in women into the public space still resonates even with the contemporary Feminist IR
scholars today who want to bring in women into IR which is otherwise a male-dominated field.
The second wave began in the 1960s and continued into the 90s and they were radical in their
demands. There were civil rights movements and anti-war struggles. Most importantly they
proclaimed that ‘the personal is political’ arguing that sex, childcare, birth control, domestic labour
which is considered as a private matter is in fact institutionalised and political, and it is fundamental
to the fight for women’s equality. This public and private divide are still relevant today for a feminist
analysis of IR as well when we put gender into perspective where construction of masculinity is seen
suited for public and political spaces.

The third wave began in the 1990s. It focused on the plurality of voice, differences, and
acknowledged intersectionality on the basis of colour, race, post-colonial experience, etc.

Lastly, the fourth wave is a recent development that has been ushered in since 2008 with the
increasing use of the internet for feminist activism. Social media like Twitter and Facebook was
paramount in the ‘Arab Spring’ in the 2010s (Stepanova 2011:1) where women, in particular, came
out to the streets defying authorities, in an otherwise conservative society, affecting international
relations.

However, a common insight among the different waves is that gender matters in understanding how
IR works. It highlights the problem of inequality that is sustained and perpetuated in terms of work,
wages, public participation, division of work, etc. arising from the hierarchical gender distinction
between men and women.

The distinction between sex and gender

Feminist scholars make a distinction between sex and gender. The sex of a person is based on the
biological/bodily features whereas the gender of a person is based on the upbringing of that person.
For example, Girls are taught to be shy, soft-spoken and timid whereas boys are taught to be rough
and tough. When boys cry, they are asked not to cry like girls. Such a difference in their upbringing
impacts the total personality of the child and makes her/him a particular type of adult. Gender is
created by family and societal values. How a man should behave and how a woman should behave in
an ideal way is decided by societal values.

Gender is further divided into the concepts of masculinity and femininity. Qualities and behavioural
features that are generally ascribed to males is known as masculinity such as rationality, power, and
aggressiveness and qualities/behaviours that are generally ascribed to females are known as
femininity such as kindness, emotional attachment etc.

Feminists argue that masculinity and femininity is socially constructed and people belonging to both
sexes can develop either of these qualities, given the nature of upbringing and education.

FEMINISM IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS:

Feminist perspectives entered the International Relations discipline at the end of the 1980s, at about
the same time as the end of the Cold War. The first international conference on women, gender and
the study of International Relations (IR) was held in 1988 in Wellesley College, Massachusetts, United
States.
Jan J. Tickner's feminist perspective on international relations is critical of the traditional approach to
international relations theory, which is exemplified by the six principles of political realism put
forward by Hans Morgenthau. These principles include the importance of the national interest, the
role of power, and the centrality of the state in international politics.

Tickner's feminist perspective critiques these principles for a number of reasons. First, she argues
that the traditional approach to international relations tends to overlook the ways in which gender
shapes global politics. she argues that objectivity is associated with masculinity whereas human
nature is both masculine as well as feminine For example, the focus on state power and military
capabilities tends to ignore the experiences of women, who are disproportionately affected by war
and conflict. Similarly, the emphasis on the national interest can obscure the fact that different
groups within a society may have very different interests and priorities.

Second, Tickner argues that the traditional approach to international relations is overly focused on
state actors, to the exclusion of other actors who may have a significant impact on global politics.
This narrow focus can lead to an incomplete understanding of the complexities of global power
relations. By contrast, feminist perspectives emphasize the importance of non-state actors, social
movements, and civil society organizations in shaping global norms and institutions.

Finally, Tickner critiques the traditional approach to international relations for its lack of attention to
issues of social justice and equality. The emphasis on power and the national interest can lead to a
disregard for the experiences and perspectives of marginalized groups. In contrast, feminist
perspectives prioritize the importance of equality and justice, and call attention to the ways in which
gender, race, class, and other social categories intersect to shape global power relations.

Overall, Tickner's feminist perspective on international relations offers a critical and inclusive
alternative to traditional approaches, and emphasizes the importance of gender, social justice, and
non-state actors in shaping global power relations. It draws attention to how the discipline and the
practice of international relations has prioritized masculinity. Hence concepts such as power
understood as domination, autonomy, objectivity, competition, zero-sum game, aggressive
behaviour, the idea of a strong muscular male leader heading the state, state security and nuclear
politics get prioritized in international relations theory and practice. This not only sidelines a plurality
of actors in world politics but also completely blinds the discipline to issues central to individual
security especially women.

Re-defining the concept

Mainstream theories like realism, liberalism and constructivism treat the state as the main actor of
international relations. Accordingly, when it comes to security, their focus is mainly on state security
and how it can be achieved primarily through military and economic means at the national level.
Feminist scholars have argued that the concept of security needs to be understood not only in a
topdown fashion but also a bottom-up perspective where individual and communities are also
prioritized.

This is because individual issues completely get hidden in this race for state security. With huge
spending on defence budgets, some countries spend very less on basic necessities for their citizens.
This negatively impacts all citizens, but women in particular because of the patriarchal system at all
socio-economic levels
Feminist scholars have also highlighted how war and conflicts affect women. “In wartime, women are
particularly subject to rape and prostitution. Rape is not just an accident of war, but often a
systematic military strategy”

Its use as a weapon of war was gruesomely demonstrated during World War II , when both Allied and
Axis armies committed rape as a means of terrorizing enemy civilian populations and demoralizing
enemy troops. Two of the worst examples were the sexual enslavement of women in territories
conquered by the Japanese army and the mass rape committed against German women by
advancing Russian soldiers.

Jean Bethke Elshtain is one of the foremost feminist IR scholars, in her book Women and War (1987)
she challenged theprotector-protected relationship during war/conflict.

Gender stereotypes have forced us to think of men as protectors and women as those who need
protection.

But the actual conduct of a war has shown that these same protectors can easily turn into the
greatest threat to women and children safety. Several cases of abuse and assault on women and
children have been reported even by the United Nations Peace Keeping Forces during their missions
All along the First ‘Great Debate’ between idealism and realism and the ‘Second Debate’ or the inter-
paradigm debate between realism and neorealism in the IR discourse, there have been no accounts
of women’s experience in their theorisation of international relations (Sylvester 2004). It was a man’s
world where the experience of a particular man especially from the West, elite, and white decides
what’s going on in international relations. And this selected male experience is projected onto all of
us as a universal human experience. To elaborate further, the major IR theories like liberalism,
realism, and other proponents such as gametheory strategy are based on broad theoretical claims
centred on rationality, objectivity, and centrality. The lack of pluralism in their theoretical frameworks
results in systemic biases within the IR discipline as they decide what to study, what methods to
apply, basically they determined what international relations is.

CRITICISM OF FEMINIST IR

The most widely levelled criticism against the feminist IR scholarship is that it focus on women. In
gender studies there is too much focus on women that gender is taken synonymously for women.
There is less focus on ‘men and masculinity’ as a subject of study. The argument is that equal
attention can be paid to men and masculinity on how men also suffer from toxic masculinity. For
example, men have to be a breadwinner, protector, strong, brave, rational, domineering, etc.
otherwise they are effeminate and not ‘manly’. Men have to prove their manliness. However, more
IR feminists like Tickner have examined both masculinity and femininity in her work. Feminists are
working on intersectionality and alternative forms of knowledge for example indigenous knowledge
tradition. The argument is that when feminist started its intellectual engagement with international
relations it focus on women because it was the largest marginalised group that major IR theories
didn’t take into consideration. But over time as IR theories opened up to gender analysis feminist
have expanded its concerns and views in other sectors as well. Another criticism against the feminist
IR scholars is that, while offering important insights, they have failed to construct a theory of their
own. Feminist analysis of international relations is largely considered as a meta-theory since they do
not have grand theories about international politics like traditional IR theories like Liberalism and
Realism. They are accused of not being able to provide a coherent account of the nature of
international relations. There is no single ‘feminist paradigm’ but several strands of feminism working
in the field. The immediate response from the feminist community was that it was not possible to
reduce multiple realities into a single theory nor it is desirable.

Feminist IR scholars are also challenged by the assumption of a universal category of woman.
Women’s experiences are different; it differs from society to society and from culture to culture.
Experience of Western women is in deep contrast to women situated in Third World countries. This
particular argument is central to post-colonial and poststructuralist criticism of Western feminism.
There is a general acknowledgement of this ‘difference’ politics among the feminist but they
maintain while working towards it one shouldn’t lose the continued existence of gender inequalities
and violence on women across all cultures and societies.

Conclusion

Feminist analysis of international relations helps us to rethink and revisit some of the core concepts
in the field of IR which are taken for granted. They introduced a different form of knowledge and
helped to disclose the hierarchies and inequalities that are also shaping the world. Their main
contribution is ‘gender as a category of analysis’ for examining international relations. Gender
relations affect every aspect of international relations; state, war, diplomacy, international political
economy, etc. They destabilise the traditional IR theories but IR as a discipline got new insights. Since
the post-Cold War there has been enormous increase in the volume of feminist IR scholarship. Today,
feminist IR scholars are venturing into marginalised sectors and are vocal about it. Feminist
perspective is important for international relations.