FEMINIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF FEMINISM: DECONSTRUCTING

MAINSTREAM INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

EGBOH, E. A

PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE,

NNAMDI AZIKIWE UNIVERSITY (UNIZIK), AWKA

By

ANICHE, E. T.

anitoox@yahoo.com. Ph. No: 07067554191

LECTURER,

INSTITUTE OF CONTINUING EDUCATION,

IMO STATE UNIVERSITY, OWERRI

Introduction

In international relations (IR) theory, it is

important to understand that feminism is derived from

the school of thought known as reflectionism. A

feminist IR involves looking at how international

politics affects and is affected by both men and women

and also at how the core concepts that are employed

within the discipline of IR such as war, security, etc,

are themselves gendered. Feminist IR has not only

concerned itself with the traditional focus of IR on

states, wars, diplomacy and security, but feminist IR

scholars have also emphasized the importance of looking

at how gender shapes the current global political

economy (Tickner, 2001).

Therefore, the scope of traditional international

relations expanded over the years in order to

accommodate new perspectives, themes, and concepts.

Feminism, for so long was ignored and the concept of

gender neglected. Feminism in international relations

rose in the 1980s to give voice to the marginalized

women. Feminist international relations seeks to create

a different view and a different perspective of

international relations. By introducing new ideas and

presenting questions. Feminism in international

relations seeks to change how the world is viewed.

Another aim of feminist international relations is to

give emphasis on gender in the discipline of

international relations.

However, beyond exposing the hidden assumptions

about gender in the field of international relations,

feminist international relations often challenge

traditional concepts of gender as well. These

traditional international relations concepts revolve

around the assumptions that males fight wars and run

states, whereas females are basically irrelevant to

international relations. Feminist scholars in

international relations countered that these gender

roles are based in the broader construction of

masculinity as suitable to public and political spaces,

whereas femininity is associated with the sphere of the

private and domestic (Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2008).

Consequently, True (2001) writes that gender

refers to the asymmetrical social constructs of

masculinity and femininity as opposed to ostensibly

“biological” male female different, although postmodern

feminists contend that both sex and gender are socially

constructed categories. Thus, military training for

example is considered to be socialization into

masculinity carried to the extremes. Feminist

international relations scholars also seek to

demonstrate how the entire enterprise of international

relations is a gendered construction, including the

processes of militarization and capitalist

globalization and the practices of state sovereignty

(True, 2001).

Traditionally and historically too, the boundaries

of gender and the state have excluded women from

domestic and international political life and

engendered international relations as the exclusive

preserve of men and as a primary site for the

construction of masculinities through the control and

domination of woman. Patriarchal structures and

gendered symbolism within and across states have

rationalized changing power relationships while

maintaining a semblance of material and ideological

continuity in world order. Thus, the sphere of

international relations is considered as male-

dominated. For so long, the voices of women were never

heard. Women were regarded as unimportant in

international relations. The concept of gender was also

avoided as many international relations theorists and

scholars argue that the discipline is gender neutral

(True, 2001).

The first feminist challenge to mainstream

international relations contends that women’s lives and

experiences have been excluded from the study of

international relations and female scholars from the

brotherhood of the international relations field. This

sexist or gender exclusion has resulted in intensive

research which presents only a partial malestream view

of international reality in a field in which the

dominant theories claim to explain the reality of world

politics. The mainstream international relations has

been excessively focused on conflict and anarchy, the

practice of statecraft and formulating strategy that

is excessively focused on competitions and fear. As a

result international relations scholars continue to

theorize politics and the international realm in a way

that guarantees that women will be absent from their

research or inquiry and their research agenda remain

unaltered (Grant and Newland, 1991; True 2001).

Feminist international relations, therefore,

involve recognizing over fifty percent of the world’s

population, correcting the denial or misrepresentation

of women in world politics due to false assumption that

male experience can count for both men and women, and

that women are either absent from international

political activities or not relevant to global

processes. Actually on a world scale women are a

disadvantaged group in that they own one percent of the

world’s property and resources, perform sixty percent

of the labour, and account for the majority of

refugees, illiterate and poor persons. Yet women are

central or pivotal to the survival of families and

communities as well as being at the fore front of

environmental, peace, indigenous, nationalist and other

global social movements (Runyan and Peterson, 1991).

Although the central focus of feminist

international relations is on women, many feminists

argue that it is not their only concern. Feminists are

concerned on how gender, both femininity and

masculinity, construct, constrain, and empower all

gendered bodies. Feminist international relations

scholars have theoretically and empirically raised the

‘man’ question in international relations (Weber 2005).

We therefore divide this chapter into five main

sections, the first section is introduction, the second

section identifies the various perspectives of feminist

international relations, the third section discusses

salient and nutty issues in feminist international

relations, the fourth section examines the roles of

women in international relations, and finally, the

fifth section concludes by summarizing or highlighting

major issues discussed in this chapter.

Perspectives of Feminist International Relations

There are in literature several perspectives of

feminist international relations by different scholars,

some of which have overlapping argument and therefore

not necessarily mutually exclusive. Some of these major

feminist international relations perspectives include

difference feminism, liberal feminism, postmodern

feminism, critical feminism, standpoint feminism,

radical feminism and empiricist feminism with some

conflicting views yet agreeing on some certain basic

issues on the role of gender in international relations

and as well problematize in varying degrees mainstream

or traditional international relations such as

liberalism, realism and even Marxism and other variants

or versions such as neo-liberalism, neo-realism and

neo-Marxism (Griffiths, et al, 1999; Thorburn, 2000;

Code, 2002; Tickner, 2002; Wibben, 2004; Goldstein and

Pevehouse, 2008).

Consequently, Thorburn (2000) notes that there is

a diversity of views within feminism itself. For

convenience and purpose of analysis we can classify

these perspectives or schools of thought into two,

namely, conventional feminist international relations

perspectives and alternative feminist international

relations perspectives. The conventional feminist

international relations perspectives are difference

feminism, liberal feminism, postmodern feminism and

critical feminism while alternative feminist

international relations perspectives include standpoint

feminism, radical feminism and empiricist feminism.

Conventional Feminist International Relations

Perspectives

The conventional feminist international relations

perspectives include difference feminism, liberal

feminism, postmodern feminism and critical feminism.

Difference feminism in international relations arose as

a reaction against the mainstream international

relations, what is called malestream international

relations, particularly, realist and neo-realist

international relations by criticizing its core

assumption such as anarchy and sovereignty. Difference

feminist therefore argues that core concepts of realism

reflect the ways on which males tend to interact and

see the world. Thus, the realist perspective simply

assumes male participants when discussing foreign

policy decision-making, state sovereignty or the use of

military force (Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2008).

Difference feminism therefore focuses on

emphasizing the unique contributions of women as women

and sees women as potentially more effective than men

on average in conflict resolution as well as group

decision making. Difference feminists in international

relations believe that there are real differences

between genders that are not just socially construction

and cultural indoctrination. Difference feminists find

in realism a hidden assumption of masculinity, for

example, the sharp distinction that the realists draw

between international politics being anarchic and

domestic politics being ordered parallels the

distinction in gender roles between the public and

private spheres denoting masculine and feminine,

respectively (Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2008).

Difference feminists thus believe that realism

constructs international relations as a man’s world. By

contrast an international system based on feminine

principles might give greater importance to the

interdependence of states than their independence or

sovereignty, stressing the responsibility of people to

care for one another with less regard for states and

borders. In the struggle between the principles of

human rights and of sovereignty, that is, non-

interference in internal affairs of states, human

rights would receive priority. Difference feminism

notes that the realists’ preoccupation with the inter-

state level of analysis presumes that the logic of war

itself is autonomous and can be separated from other

social relationships such as economics, domestic

politics, sexism and racism, however, difference

feminist international relations exposes the

connections of these phenomena with war. It suggests

new ways for understanding war at the domestic and

individual levels of analysis underlying causes that

realists largely ignore (Goldstein and Pevehouse,

2008).

Difference feminist perspective also notes that

neo-liberalism, another mainstream international

relations, by accepting the realist assumption of

separate unitary states as the important actors and

downplaying sub-state and transnational actors

including women represents a setback on orthodox

liberalism. It also notes that neo-liberalism’s

conception of cooperation as rule-based interactions

among autonomous actors as well reflects masculinity

assumptions. Difference feminists see war as a male

occupation because men are inherently the more warlike

gender, and the women more peacefully. Although realism

may accurately portray the importance of war and

military force in international relations, it merely

reflects the male domination of the international

sphere. Difference feminists thus have plenty of

evidence to support the ideas of war as a masculine

pursuit. Difference feminism sets out to develop a

feminist practice of international relations that could

provide an alternative to the masculine practice of

realism (Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2008).

Liberal feminism in international relations arose

as a critique of difference feminists’ critiques of

realism. Thus, liberal feminists believe that when

women are allowed to participate in international

relations, they play the game basically the way men do,

with similar results. They think that women can

practise realism in terms of sovereignty, military

force, etc, just as well as men can. Liberal feminist

international relations scholars therefore tend to

reject the difference feminism’s critique of realism as

masculine (Kelly, 2001; Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2008).

Liberal feminism in international relations

focuses on the integration of women into the

overwhelmingly male preserves of foreign policy making

and the military. In most states, these occupations are

typically at least 90 percent male, for instance, in

1995, the world’s diplomatic delegations to the UN

General Assembly were 80 percent male totally and the

heads of these delegations were 97 percent male. For

liberal feminists, the main effect of this gender

imbalance on the nature of international relations is

to waste talent. Liberal feminist scholars believe that

women have the same capabilities as men so the

inclusion of women in traditionally male occupations

would bring additional capable individuals into these

areas. Gender equality would thus increase national

capabilities by giving the state a better overall pool

of diplomats, soldiers and politicians (Goldstein and

Pevehouse, 2008). Thus, liberal feminism intends to

empower women and give them an equal role in society,

especially in politics and at work. Its goal is to

insure complete gender equality between men and women

without changing completely the way the society works

or girls' and boys' socialization.

In support of their argument that on average,

women handle power just as men do, liberal feminists

point to the many examples of women who have served in

such positions. No distinctly feminine feature of their

behaviour in office distinguishes these leaders form

their male counterparts. Female state leaders do not

appear to be any more peaceful or any less committed to

state sovereignty and territorial integrity, than are

male leaders. Some have even suggested that women in

power tend to be more warlike to compensate for being

females in traditionally male roles. In all women state

leaders, like men, seem capable of leading in war or in

peace as circumstances demand. Liberal feminists also

believe that women soldiers like women politicians have

a range of skills and abilities comparable to men’s

own; and the main effect of including women would be to

improve the overall quality of military forces.

Therefore, liberal feminists reject the argument

that women bring uniquely feminine assets or

liabilities to foreign and military affairs. They do

not critique realism as essentially masculine in nature

but critique state practices that exclude women from

participation in international politics and war.

Liberal feminism critique difference feminine, for

example, difference feminists argue that realism

reflects a masculine perception of social relations

whereas liberal feminists think that women can be just

as realists as men. Therefore, liberal feminists

believe that female participation in foreign policy and

the military will enhance state capabilities but

difference feminists think that women’s unique

abilities can be put to better use in transforming or

feminizing the entire system of international relations

rather than in trying to play men’s games. Feminist

liberalism in a nutshell see essential differences in

men’s and women’s abilities or perspectives as trivial

or non-existent and insists that men and women are

equal they reject these claims on gender difference as

stereo-typed gender roles and deplore the exclusion of

women from positions of power in international

relations but do not believe that inclusion of women

would change the nature of international system.

Liberal feminists seek to include women more often as

subjects of study such as women state leaders, women

soldiers and other women operating outside traditional

gender roles in international relations (Goldstein and

Pevehouse, 2008).

Postmodern feminism in international relations

seeks to deconstruct realism with the specific aim of

uncovering the pervasive hidden influences of gender in

international relations while showing how arbitrary the

construction of gender roles is. Feminist

postmodernists began by agreeing with difference

feminists that realism carries hidden meanings about

gender roles but deny that there is any fixed inherent

meaning in either male or female gender. Postmodern

feminists critique liberal feminists for trying merely

to integrate women into traditional structure of war

and foreign policy and as well difference feminists for

glorifying traditional feminine virtues (Goldstein and

Pevehouse, 2008).

In studying war, postmodern feminists argue that

women are not just passive bystanders or victims in

war, but active participants in a system of warfare

tied to both genders. Women act not only as doctors,

nurses and journalists at the war front but as mothers,

wives and girl friends on the home front. Postmodern

feminist international relations scholars believe that

the stories of military forces should not omit the

roles of prostitution at military bases, nor should

stories of diplomacy omit the roles of diplomats’ wives

(Enloe, 1989).

Feminist postmodernist reject not only realism but

also some of the alternative approaches that emphasize

the protection of women and other non-combatants. Just

war doctrine is considered too abstract that is a set

of concepts and rules that does no justice to the

richness of each historical context and varied roles of

individual men and women within it. Postmodern

feminists have tried to deconstruct the language of

realism especially when it reflects influences of

gender and sex. They note that realism and liberalism

ignore all the sexual aspects of weaponry, limiting

themselves to such issues as a weapon’s explosive

power, its range and other technical information about

its use as state leverage. Also, feminist

postmodernists faults Marxism on the grounds that by

focusing on paradigm of production and class as basic

units Marxism ignores other forms of exclusion such as

gender and in the same process subsumes women and their

reproductive labour and replicates the gender blindness

of liberalism and realism (Tickner, 1992; Peterson,

1998; Aniche, 2009). In summary, postmodern feminism

tends to reject assumption about gender made by both

difference and liberal feminists. Where difference

feminists consider gender difference important and

fixed and feminist liberals considers those differences

trivial, postmodern feminists find them important but

arbitrary and flexible (Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2008).

Following the Marxist-oriented critical

perspective, critical feminism wants to change the

society and focus on socialization. They showed that

not only are international relations’ concepts gender-

biased or based on male assumptions and representations

but also the way gender is central in international

relations (True, 2002). Critical feminists like

postmodern feminists question the existing ontological

and epistemological assumptions of international

relations theory. In particular they draw attention to

the consequences for those assumptions in considering

gender as one of the crucial conditions of possibility

both for contemporary interstate relations and for the

realist worldview. The works of critics such as

Elshtain and Enloe have drawn attention to the fact

that gendered division of labour and constructions of

femininity and masculinity underlie many practices in

contexts (such as from diplomacy to the military) that

are central to the realist perception of international

politics. Also, the works of Tickner and Peterson have

challenged the positivist claim to neutrality by

pointing out the gendered assumptions that help to

construct the building blocks of positivist analysis

and methodology (Tickner, 1991; Hutchings 2001).

Alternative Feminist International Relations

Perspectives

The alternative feminist international relations

perspectives include standpoint feminism, radical

feminism and empiricist feminism. Standpoint feminism

focuses on how the gendered construction of knowledge

helps to understand or explain traditional topics of

international relations, and underscores the idea that

gender may be structuring how we think in the

international context. Standpoint feminists like Ann

Tickner argue that international relations is gendered

to marginalize women’s voices and stresses that women

have knowledge, perspectives and experiences that

should be brought to bear on the study of international

relations. In contrast to traditional or mainstream

international relations which views security as

protecting the state from other states, standpoint

feminists argue that the topic of security should

address acts of rape and violence, not only from

foreign perpetrators but from their fellow citizens as

well. Thus, the topic of security shows how gender

consideration excluded from the very beginning of the

discussion, results in policymaking that would be

subsequently exclusive of, and likely detrimental to

women, because of the traditional international

relations focus on state-to-state interaction in

matters of security. Prior to discussing any

international relations topic, standpoint feminist

international relations theory would first challenge

those participating in the discussion and those

defining the key terms and issues, by critically asking

them if the normative perspectives and working

vocabulary are broad enough to effectively accommodate

issues affecting women (Griffiths, et al 1999; Code,

2002; Tickner, 2002).

A second focus of feminist research has been

directed at deconstructing major discipline-defining

texts and uncovering gender biases in the paradigmatic

debates that have dominated the field since its

inception in 1919. Sometimes referred to as standpoint

feminism, this type of feminist scholarship argues for

the construction of knowledge based on the material

conditions of women’s experiences, which give us a more

complete picture of the world since those who are

oppressed and discriminated against often have a better

understanding of the sources of their oppression than

their oppressors. Whilst feminist empiricism exposes

the role of women in international relations,

standpoint feminism alerts us to the ways in which the

conventional study of international relations is itself

gendered. Despite the rise of feminism in the field,

there remains a major imbalance between male and female

academics in international relations, and many

feminists attack the ways in which men’s experiences

are projected as if they represent some universal

standpoint. According to standpoint feminists, the

major Western intellectual traditions of realist and

liberal thought have drawn from culturally defined

notions of masculinity, emphasizing the value of

autonomy, independence, and power. Those traditions

have formulated assumptions about interstate behaviour,

security, progress, and economic growth in ways that

allegedly perpetuate the marginalization and

invisibility of women (Griffiths and O’callaghan,

2002).

The radical feminism, on the other hand, focuses

on the lives and experiences of women showing how

women’s activities are made invisible on the

international scene. Radical feminists like Cynthia

Enloe argues that feminists should not only seek to

include themselves in the higher realms of policymaking

and leadership, but should search for where women have

already fulfilled roles to ensure the international

system works smoothly and efficiently such as the works

done by diplomatic wives and military prostitutes. She

also argues that issues concerning sex trafficking and

migration of labour may be considered less important

than the forefront issues of military and war and serve

to uphold the critical processes of smooth diplomacy

and relations between foreign states in such areas as

military bases in times of war, or at states dinners

for foreign diplomats. Radical feminism therefore

stresses that women have never really been excluded

from the core of international relations, but have

simply not been publicly or professionally acknowledged

for their past and present contributions to central

issues in international relations (Griffiths et al,

1999; Code, 2002).

Feminist empiricists believe that science is

gender biased that is not gender friendly, but can

offer valuable insights if research is conducted in the

right way. They advocate moving away from considering

the masculine condition as the defining human condition

and toward incorporating a feminist awareness (Wibben,

2004). The first wave of feminist scholarship in the

1980s is what is now called feminist empiricism, in

which international relations scholars have sought to

reclaim women’s hidden voices and to expose the

multiplicity of roles that women play in sustaining

global economic forces and state interactions. For

example, women’s participation and involvement

facilitate tourism, colonialism, and economically

powerful states’ domination of weak states. The

maintenance of the international political economy

depends upon stable political and military relations

among states. In turn, the creation of stable

diplomatic and military communities has often been the

responsibility of women (as wives, girl-friends, and

prostitutes). Feminist empiricism exposes the role of

women and demonstrates their importance in a wide

variety of arenas (Griffiths and O’callaghan, 2002).

Issues in Feminist International Relations

Feminist international relations is sometimes

easily equated or closely associated with idealism, and

thus, they have themselves been criticized for ignoring

men in their zeal to promote the emancipation of women.

It remains to be seen how feminist scholarship evolves

to include a broader agenda of questions about gender

in international relations theory and practice

(Griffiths and O’callaghan 2002). Thus, feminism

generally stems from a critique of realism whose

socially constructed worldview continues to guide and

dominate much thought about international politics.

One, feminists argue that realist over-emphasize the

role of the state in defining international relations,

deemphasizing internal political and social structure

of states. Feminist therefore considers how the state

includes, or excludes, the views of its individual

citizens, and how in turn, the states domestic views

translate into foreign policies. Feminists therefore

consider realism as anti-thetical to achieving gender

equality (Tickner, 1994; Kegley and Wittkopf, 2004).

Realism, feminists point out, centres its

theoretical structure on how the state seeks power and

defends its national interests against other competing

states within an international anarchy where there is

lack of authority higher than the state. States seeks

security through a balance of power in the

international arena, primarily through military means

and resorting to war, if necessary. Realists therefore

view the state as the key if not sole actor in

international politics thereby ignoring the role of the

individual including women in the international

relations (Kegley and Wittkopt, 2004).

Thus, gender is defined by feminists as a set of

socially constructed characteristics describing what

men and women ought to be. Traditionally, men are

associated with characteristics such as strength,

rationality, independence, protector, and public. Women

on the other hand are associated with characteristics

such as weakness, emotionality, relational, protected,

and private. It is important to understand that

individual men and women may not embody all these

characteristics. Women may possess ‘masculine

characteristics’ and vice versa. It is also important

to understand that these characteristics change over

time and place. Feminists argue that there is

inequality in these characteristics. Positive values

are often assigned to masculine characteristics. The

foreign policies of states are often legitimated in

terms of hegemonic masculine characteristics; a

desirable foreign policy is generally one which strives

for power and autonomy and which protects its citizens

from outside dangers (Dunnes, et al 2007).

Although, liberalism in contrast to realism

emphasizes the role of the individual over that of the

state, feminists point to the inequality inherent in

the free trade, which disproportionately affect women

and notes that male-centred macro-economic indicators

such as Gross National Product (GNP) undervalue women’s

labour. The capitalist structure is considered to be

patriarchal, thus, effectively marginalizing the

participation and contribution of women in the economy

since much of their labour is reflected in unpaid

illegal domestic settings that are not included in

economic indicators. Even liberalist institutions are

blamed for creating free trade agreements that weaken

states protections on labour rights and public social

funds which serve to negatively affect large proportion

of women in the labour force (Charlesworth, 1998; Code,

2002).

Feminists also challenge liberalism’s claim that

international institutions provide for ways in which

women can be become more politically and socially

acknowledged and empowered by insisting that liberal

institutions are gendered in favour of men while

liberal progress has created disproportionate strife

and marginalization for women. Since the leaders and

the processes of formal international organizations

emerge from patriarchal systems that work or functions

to only keep women at a disadvantage (Charlesworth,

1998).

However, feminism shares the view of liberalism on

the role of individual and its emphasis on a

cooperative world. Thus, despite its critique of

liberal patriarchal systems, feminism still relies

heavily on pursuit of civil liberties in order to

achieve gender equality. Therefore, there is room for

gender reconstruction of liberalist institutions

especially with the expansion of civil society (Ruiz,

2011). This underlines the emergence of liberal

feminism.

Thus, in order to integrate gender into the

mainstream of international relations discipline, it is

necessary to challenge its conceptual framework which

has excluded women from the study of international

relations in the first place. Consequently, the second

feminist challenge to the international relations canon

contends that women have not been studied in

international relations because the conceptual

framework of the entire field is gendered.

International relations key concepts are neither

generic nor neutral but derived from social and

political context where the problem of patriarchy is

repressed. For example, feminist international

relations scholars argue that notions of power,

sovereignty, autonomy, anarchy, security, and the

levels of analysis, man, the state and the

international system are inseparable from the

patriarchal division of public and private. They are

identified with men’s rather than women’s experience

and forms of knowledge. Thus, international relations

is not just gender-based, but is premised on the very

exclusion of women and feminine attributes. In the

dominant malestream theories of international relations

like realism and neo-realism, gender is world-

constitutive (True, 2001).

From a feminist perspective, the mainstream or

dominant international relations failure to see the

socially constructed boundaries of gender, the state

and international relations has limited its ability to

explain historical change and continuity in the world

politics. Therefore, feminist scholars of international

relations have shown how state formation and the

expansion of an international society of states are

implicated in the construction of gender differences

through the establishment of divisions between

public/private, state/society, and

domestic/international. The creation of a patriarchal

division between public and private spheres within

states relegated women to subordinate family-households

where they have often been invisible to social and

political analysts. Similarly, the territorial borders

of the sovereign state, which separate ‘inside’ from

‘outside’, the domestic polity from the international

realm, and citizens from foreigners or aliens have been

symbolically defined and enforced by women’s bodies, as

seen in the male violation of territorial integrity and

nation-state identity through rape (Peterson, 1992;

True, 2001).

Thus, these boundaries of gender and the state

have excluded women from domestic and international

political life and engendered international relations

as the virtual preserve of men and as a primary site

for the construction of masculinities through the

control and domination of women. In particular, the

discursive separation of domestic politics from

international politics and concomitant neo-realist

aversion to the domestic analogy, obscures the prior

gendered public-private division within states. Both

mainstream and critical theories of global politics

overlook this private sphere because it is submerged

within the domestic analogy itself, that is, the

explanation of inter-state relations based on

comparable or casual dynamics inside states (True,

2001).

The key and constitutive concepts like power,

rationality, security and sovereignty underpin the

level of analysis in international relations, and the

hegemonic realist theories which claim to explain the

reality of world politics in a more limited sense as

‘international relations’. These concepts are gender-

biased, derived from the androcentric accounts of men

(human nature), the state, and the systems of states as

ahistorical fixities made self-evident by reference to

a gendered state of nature (i.e. the natural state of

egoistic, rational men). Feminist international

relations scholars have analyzed the gender-specificity

of each of these key concepts or terms and suggested

how mystification of their gendered rather than generic

foundations limits our ability to explain and

understand the multiple realities of world politics

(True, 2001).

Women and International Relations

The early form of feminist international relations

is focused on challenging the discipline and

reformulating the theories and improving the knowledge

of global politics through the inclusion of gender and

women’s experiences. Feminists argue that differences

in the impact of the state system and the global

economy on men and women can only be understood if

gender analysis is incorporated in the discipline.

Feminist international relations scholars started

working on the key concepts of IR. They studied

concepts such as sovereignty, the state, and security.

They started to devise new questions in order to

improve the understanding of the concepts and the

discipline. They started to ask why women remain

relatively powerless in the foreign and military policy

spheres. Feminist international relations also sought

to make women visible as subjects in international

politics and global economy. They draw attention to

women’s invisibility and gender subordination in the

theory and practice of international politics. The

second wave of feminist international relations has

focused on issues such as military prostitution,

domestic service, diplomatic households, and home-based

work (Dunne, et al 2007).

Consequently, feminist international relations

have rightly recognized that the vast majority of heads

of state, diplomats and soldiers are male underscoring

explicitly the gendered nature of the study of

international relations. For example when a survey in

2005 listed the twenty five most influential

international relations scholars, all twenty five were

male. Subsequently, in a 2007 update, two women made

the list, near the bottom, though the point must be

made that feminism whether in international relations

or in other disciplines is not only female scholars

affair in that there are very many male scholars who

are feminist or who adopt feminist approach to their

study (Meyer and Prugl, 1999).

Feminist international relations scholarship and

the field of women in international development (WID)

documented how male bias in the development process has

led to poor implementation of project and

unsatisfactory policy outcomes. It made visible the

central role of women as subsistence producers and

providers of basic needs of developing countries. WID

was motivated less by a concern to integrate women into

processes of development than by the need to recognize

and support women’s already integral role in

development. For example, according to the United

Nations estimate, while women’s farming accounts for

one-half of the food production in the developing world

it provides three-quarters of domestic food supply for

family-households (Beneria, 1982, True, 2001).

However, in the late 1980s, there was a shift from

studying women in development (WID) to analyzing gender

and development (GAD), which sought to reform gender-

blind multilateral agencies such as the World Bank and

government aid policies that have taken men as the

normative agents and contributors of development. GAD

studies have at the same time, failed to effectively

address the basic need of developing countries,

sometimes even worsening their problems. Indeed, many

GAD specialists and local women themselves believe that

development project for women and by women while in

themselves important contain lessons that need to be

extended to a country’s whole model of social and

economic development (Kardam, 1991; Staudt, 1997;

Miller and Razavi, 1998; O’Brien, et al, 2000).

Economic globalization has both intensified social

and economic polarization both within and across

states, in particular, it has increased inequality

between men and women as manifest in the feminization

of poverty and the gendered international division of

labour. Thus, in the late 1980s and 1990s, feminist

international relations scholars noted the expanding

gender gap in work hours, income, resources and power,

intensified by third world debt crises, structural

adjustment policies in the South and state

restructuring in the North. The shift from largely

(domestic) state to (global) market provision of public

services has imposed a disproportionate burden on women

to pick up the slack of the state (Bakker, 1994;

Marchand and Runyan, 2000; True, 2001; Aniche, et al,

2010).

Feminist international relations scholarship has

also highlighted the importance of flexible female

labour in state and corporate strategies for global

competitiveness and economic globalization has been

accompanied by a world-wide expansion in the use of

female labour. A process of global feminization is

occurring as many occupation and tasks previously

dominated by men have become low wages, insecure, often

part-time or contract-based temporary female employment

with few social benefits. For example, free trade

export processing zones in developing countries are

heavily reliant on young women’s labour. Global cities,

the nodal points for global financial market and

economic transactions are also dependent on a class of

women workers. Economic globalization has as well led

to the phenomenal growth of sex tourism, male-order

brides, and most unfortunate the international

trafficking of women and girls for prostitution, which

for some states, especially developing states, these

economic activities are key source of foreign exchange

and national income (Standing, 1992; Stasialis and

Bakan, 1997; Chin, 1998).

Feminist international relations studies of global

governance show the gendered construction of

international organization (IOs) and even more than

national decision-making institutions are dominated by

elite men. The feminist international relations

scholars have observed the effects of recent efforts to

mainstream gender in global governance institutions.

These initiatives have allowed more women join their

policy making ranks. Women now head many of the United

Nations agencies including the World Health

Organization (WHO), the United Nations Children’s Fund,

the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, the

World Food Programme, the World Population Fund. The

Deputy Secretary-General and High Commissioner for

Human Rights are also both women. Yet in the United

Nations, women continue to be ghettoized in agencies

specifically concerned with women’s and children’s

issues and are only gradually coming to have influence

over the large United Nations global security and

development agenda (Pietila and Vickers, 1996; True,

2001).

Whitworth (1994a) and Hoskyns (1996) look at how

changing assumptions about gender relations and

equality have been institutionalized in the

International Labour Organization (ILO) and the

European Union (EU), respectively. Whitworth (1994b)

particularly shows how assumptions about gender

relations in the ILO shaped policies that have had

gender-discriminatory effects in national and

international labour markets and notes that the ILO has

began to reflect upon the implications of its past

practices for women’s inequality. Whilst Hoskyns (1994)

discusses the EU’s European Court of Justice’s bold

precedent laws that have forced state jurisdictions to

harmonize their national laws to uphold equal

opportunities and gender equity. Hoskyns (1996) also

considered how women’s movements in member states have

successfully used the EU’s supranational body of law

and policy to address gender disparities at the

national level demonstrating how the pooling of state

sovereignty in the process of regional integration has

been used to extend women’s social citizenship rights

within states.

In 1999, the fact that fourteen women are

currently foreign ministers suggests that this male

domination is undergoing some changes. The feminist

foreign policy analysts have opened up a new

substantive area of policy making and research in

relations between states. In addition, it analyzed the

persistent gender-gap in the foreign policy beliefs of

men and women foreign policy-making elites and

citizens, for example, women leaders and citizens in

western states are consistently more likely to oppose

the use of force in international relations and are

typically more supportive of humanitarian intervention

(True, 2001).

Sienstra (1997) states that women have been

organizing autonomously at the global level for at

least 150 years. In the recent years, no men have

played key roles in transnational social movements such

as global movement to ban landmines, the campaign for

nuclear disarmament and the feminist network protesting

violence against women. In the troubled conflict zones

of the world, Israel/Palestine and the former

Yugoslavia, groups known as Women in Black have

protested against the escalation of militarism,

weaponry and war and men’s violence against women and

children (True, 2001). As such feminist international

relations scholarship exposes the gendered foundations

of militaristic or belligerent foreign policies.

Feminist international relations scholars have

further documented the recognition of gender justice as

a norm in international society. Human rights

instruments and declaration at the global level, for

example, the CEDAW, increasingly acknowledges the

gendered-specificity of human rights. In 1990, Amnesty

International (AI), the global human rights non-

governmental organization recognized women’s human

rights by adding gender persecution to its list of

forms of political persecution, and governments and

international institutions have followed suit. For

example, rape is now a war crime under the Geneva

Convention against war crime owing to the intensive

lobbying of transnational feminist networks (Niarchos,

1995; Philapose, 1996; True, 2001).

Feminist international relations scholars have

continued to organize women’s peace organizations. In

the 1980s, Women’s Action for Nuclear Disarmament

(WAND) opposed the nuclear arms build-up and women

encamped for years in protest at Britain’s Greenham

Common air base. In 1995, the United Nations sponsored

Beijing Conference on women brought together women

activists from around the world and helped deepen

feminists’ engagement with global issues like North-

South inequality. In 2000, the UN Security Council

passed Resolution 1325 mandating greater inclusion of

women and attention to gender in UN peacekeeping and

reconstruction (Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2008).

Concluding Remarks

Feminist international relations emerge late in

the 1980s, challenging the discipline and reformulating

the theories and improving the knowledge of global

politics through the inclusion of gender and women’s

experiences. Prior to this, the study of international

relations has been silent on gender issues. But

overtime, feminism has emerged as a key critical

perspective within the study of international

relations. The initial impetus of this critique was to

challenge the fundamental biases of the discipline and

to highlight the ways in which women were excluded from

analyses of the state, international political economy,

and international security. It maintains that the

mainstream international relations has remained a

masculine discipline, despite theorists claiming that

the sphere of international relations is gender

neutral, women and gender have been marginalized in the

study of traditional international relations. Thus,

underscoring the need for feminization of international

relations and internationalization of feminism.

In international relations (IR) theory, therefore,

it is important to understand that feminism is derived

from the school of thought known as reflectionism.

Feminism is a rich, complicated, and often

contradictory body of research in the study of

international relations at the end of the twentieth

century. In a broad sense, feminist international

relations is an umbrella term, which embraces a wide

range of perspectives aimed at examining the role and

place of gender in international relations. Some of

these main feminist international relations

perspectives include difference feminism, liberal

feminism, postmodern feminism, critical feminism,

standpoint feminism, radical feminism and empiricist

feminism with some conflicting views yet agreeing on

some certain basic issues on the role of gender in

international relations and as well problematize in

varying degrees mainstream or orthodox international

relations such as liberalism, realism and even Marxism

and other variants or versions such as neo-liberalism,

neo-realism and neo-Marxism.

References

Aniche E.T. (2009) A Modern Introduction to Political Science,Onitsha: Desvic Publishers.

Aniche, E.T. et el (2010) “Governance, Gender andPoverty in Developing Countries: A Case Study ofNigeria” Nigerian Journal of Cooperative Economics andManagement (NJCEM), 5(1).

Beneria, L. et al (1982) Women and Development: The SexualDivision of Labour in Rural Societies, New York: Palgrave.

Charlesworth, H. (1993) “Women as Sherpas: Are GlobalSummits Useful for Women?” Feminist Studies 22 (3):537.

Chin, C.B. (1998) In Service and Servitude: Foreign FemaleDomestic Workers and the Malaysian Modernity Project, NewYork: Rowman & Littlefield.

Code, L. (2002) Encylopaedia of Feminist Theories, London:Routledge.

Dunnes, T. et al. (2007) International Relations Theories: Disciplineand Diversity, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Enloe, C. (1989) Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist

Sense of International Politics, California: Geks. Goldstein, J.S. and Pevehouse, J.C. (2008) International

Relations, New York: Pearson Longman.

Grant, R. and Newland, K. (eds) (1991) Gender andInternational Relations, London: Routledge.

Griffiths, M. et al (1999) Fifty Key Thinkers in InternationalRelations, New York: Routledge.

Griffiths, M. and O’callaghan, T. (2002) InternationalRelations: The Key Concepts. London: Routledge.

Hoskyns, C. (1994) “Gender Issues in IR: The Case ofEuropean Community”, Review of International Studies,20:225-239.

Hoskyns, C. (1996) Integrating Gender: Women, Law and Politics inthe European Union, London: Longman.

Hutchings, K. (2001) “The Nature of Critique inCritical International Relations Theory”, in R.W.Jones (ed.), Critical Theory and World Politics, Boulder:Lynne Riener. 

Kardan, N. (1991) Bringing Women in: Women Issues inInternational Development Programme, Boulder: Geks.

Kegley, C.W. and Wittkopf, E.R. (2004) World Politics: Trendand Transformation, New York: Wadsworth.

Kelly, R.M. et al (eds) (2001) Gender, Globalization andDemocratization, New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

Meyer, M. K. and Prugl, E. (eds) (1999) Gender Politics inGlobal Governance, New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

Miller, C. and Rasavi, S. (eds) (1998) Missionaries andMandarins: Feminist Engagement with Development Institution,London: George Allen & Unwins.

Niarchos, C.N. (1995) “Women, War and Rape: ChallengesFacing the International Tribunal for the formerYugoslavia”, Human Rights Quarterly 17:649-690.

O’Brien, A. et al (2000) “The World Bank and Women’sMovement” in Contesting Global Governance: MultilateralEconomic Institution and Global Social Movement, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Peterson, V.S. (1992) “Transgressing Boundaries:Theories of Gender, Knowledge and InternationalRelations”, Millennium 21 (2): 183-206.

Peterson, V.S. (1998) “Feminisms and InternationalRelations” Gender and History 10 (3): 581-589.

Philapose, E. (1996) “The Laws of War and Women’s HumanRights”, Hypatia 11 (4).

Pietila, H. and Vickers, J. (1996) Making Women Matters:The Role of the United Nations, London: Longman.

Ruiz, T. (2011) “Feminist Theory and InternationalRelations: Feminist Challenge to Realism and

Liberalism”, http://www.uccs.edu/feminism accessed on20/05/2012.

Runyan, A.S. and Peterson, V.S. (1991) “The RadicalFuture of Realism: Feminist Subversions of IRTheory”, Alternatives 16:67-106.

Standing, G. (1992) “Global Feminization throughFlexible Labour” in C.K. Willer and K.P. Jameson(eds), The Political Economy of Development andUnderdevelopment, New York: Palgrave.

Stasiulis, D. and Bakan, A. (1997) “NegotiatingCitizenship: The Case of Foreign Domestic Workersin Canada”, Feminist Review 57:112-139.

Staudt, K. (ed.) (1997) Women, International Development andPolitics: The Bureaucratic Quagmire, Philadelphia: SagePress.

Thorburn, D.C (2000) “Feminism Meets InternationalRelations”, SAIS Review 20 (2):1-10.

Tickner, J.A. (1991) “Hans Morgenthau's Principles ofPolitical Realism: A Feminist Reformulation”, inR. Grant and K. Newland (eds.), Gender andInternational Relations, New York: Milton Keynes OpenUniversity Press.

Tickner, J.A. (1992) Gender in International Relations: FeministPerspectives on Achieving Global Security, New York:Columbia University Press.

Tickner, J.A. (1994) “A Feminist Critique ofPolitical Realism” in P.R. Beckman and F.D. Amico(eds) Women, Gender and World Politics: Perspectives, Policiesand Prospects, London: Westport.

Tickner, J.A. (2001) Gendering World Politics, Columbia:Columbia University Press.

Tickner, J.A. (2002) “Feminist Perspective inInternational Relations” in Handbook of InternationalRelations.

Tickner, A.J. and Sjoberg, L. (2011) Feminism andInternational Relations: Conversations about the Past, Present andFuture, New York: Routledge.

True, J. (2001) “Feminism” S. Burchill and A. Linklater

(eds) Theories of International Relations, New York:Palgrave.

True, J. (2002) "Engendering International Relations:What difference does second-generation feminismmake?", Working Paper 2002/1, Australian NationalUniversity, Department of International Relations,Canberra.

Weber, C. (2005) International Relations Theory: A CriticalIntroduction, London: Routledge.

Whitworth, S. (1994a) Feminism and International Relations:Towards a Political Economy of Gender in Interstate and Non-governmental Institutions, London: Macmillan.

Whitworth, S. (1994b) “Gender, International Relationsand the Case of the ILO” Review of InternationalStudies 20 (9): 388-405.

Wibben, A.T. (2004) “Feminist International Relations:Old Debates and New Directions”, The Brown Journalof World Affairs, X (2): 97-114.