To what extent is international politics gendered?
International politics has been regarded as a topic influenced by state centric structures
rooted within established power dynamics. However, feminists within international relations
argue that it is extremely gendered, nurtured by everlasting constructed norms that promote
and prioritize masculinity whilst disempowering femininity. Within this essay, it will analyse
the extent to which this statement is true inside international politics, observing the
theoretical underpinnings and the systemic structures that shape our politics today.
This essay will begin with establishing and defining key terms such as ‘gender’ as well as
‘gendered politics’ then an evaluation of how historical IR theories and themes are
embedded with masculine norms. Further, it will explore critiques stemming from feminist
point of view that highlight the importance of gender throughout global governance.
Presented throughout, important examples including women's exclusion from the opportunity
to be heard within decision making roles and the gendered repercussions sustained from
war will showcase how international politics is unquestionably gendered. Nevertheless, it
also presents and demonstrates the ever-going advancement in how to address these
inequalities.
The term ‘gender’, ‘‘is by no means tied to material bodily facts but is solely and completely a
social construction’ (Butler, 2002). It refers to the socially constructed roles throughout
society in which every day social norms occur. The phrase ‘gendered’ through a political
perspective would be used to describe a system between men and women which prioritizes
and values a certain gender. Joan Acker described it as the “advantage and disadvantage,
exploitation and control, action and emotion, meaning and identity of men and women”
(Acker, 1990). In the theme of this essay, this would allude to the fact that organisations and
policymakers for example would prioritize attributes and characteristics linked towards
masculinity such as aggression, competition and dominance while discounting traits
associated with femininity. Feminist IR theory criticises the superiority of masculinity within
IR, proclaiming that women's experiences have been disregarded towards contributing to
global politics. J.Ann Tickner went as far to say ‘ there is little evidence to suggest that
women have played much of a role in shaping foreign policy in any country in the twentieth
century’ (Tickner, 1992).
Throughout time, traditional theories within IR have been criticised from feminist scholars
due to the heavy emphasis on masculine themes and traits. Involved in these theories
showcases state centric and militaristic approaches displaying a gendered viewpoint that
prioritizes masculinity.
Realism, a key theory within IR revolves around an anarchic system whereby a state acts as
a primary actor where survival is the fundamental objective. This realist concept is rooted
deeply in masculinity as it aims to enhance its military as well as economic power as an
indication of state strength, reflecting traditional beliefs about masculinity that align with traits
such as power and dominance. Furthermore, realisms approach to prioritizing its state
security disregards important factors such as access to healthcare, security and food which
as a whole, disproportionately affect women more. However, despite feminist critiques,
advocates of realism argue that it is not purposefully gendered, but instead designed as a
neutral framework used to address issues within international politics. It is used through an
anarchic system where survival may be prioritized more over other factors, an advocate
would suggest that realism does not purposefully belittle and ignore women or feminine
values but instead provides a realistic and rational approach in circumstances surrounded by
competition. Further, advocates for realism also suggest realists' emphasis on militarism
, does not take away from addressing human security problems. For example, realists
encouraging a role for the military during humanitarian situations such as NATO’s inclusion
in Kosovo or against ISIS are evidence that military power can be encouraged when used to
protect endangered populations such as women and children. Lastly, realisms prominence
on self-interest may be seen as a way to actually avoid conflict instead of promoting it.
However, feminist scholars would argue that even if realism was intended as a neutral
framework, its deep-rooted ideals stem from historical context that displays masculine power
structures. Feminists suggest that a genuine approach would embody a diverse outlook and
acknowledge that security involves more than state survival.
Another prominent theory within international politics exists Liberalism. This theory
encourages cooperation as well as promoting important international institutions to take
charge of global order. Initially, liberalism may seem less politically gendered then realism,
however feminist scholars would argue otherwise. The heavy emphasis on global institutions
fail to take account of the systemic gendered inequality that takes place within them,
therefore leading to the neglection that occurs toward women's voices. Major institutions
such as the World Trade Organization or United Nations can be used to highlight these
gender imbalances. Despite devotion towards equality, these institutions are still unable to
provide gender parity within decision making. For example, ‘women hold just 28.2 per cent of
management positions’ (UN Women, 2023). This underrepresentation within the UN will
affect the policy making decision as male dominated leadership may unconsciously blindside
the difficulties women face in conflict zones or even post conflict societies. Research from
True and Mintrom argue that ‘transnational networks have been instrumental in promoting
the diffusion of gender mainstreaming policies by framing issues in ways that resonate with
domestic concerns and by building coalitions with local actors’ (True & Mintrom, 2001). From
this, it suggests that the inclusion of a wide range of perspectives, particularly women and
those supporting gender equality, can lead to more socially acceptable outcomes. However,
initiatives that have been encouraged such as the ‘UN Security Council Resolution 1325’ do
recognize the need for gender equality within peace and security. This resolution promotes
women's participation in peace processes. However, it has also been criticised for being
symbolic rather than meaningful. Resolution 1325 fails to attack the deep-rooted structural
inequalities that diminish women in international politics. Throughout the article it ‘Urges
Member States to ensure increased representation of women’, however it does not carry out
adequate measures in order to guarantee its implementation (UN, 2000).
A key claim within liberalism is that international institutions such as the UN hold significant
responsibility in upholding peace and security. However, feminist advocates argue that
‘peacekeeping operations’ involve unstable gendered dynamics which instead encourage
further inequality as well as harm within conflict environments. A report on ‘Explaining sexual
exploitation and abuse in peacekeeping missions’ supports this claim (Karim, 2016).
Throughout this demonstrates multiple abuses of power within peacekeeping missions,
exploiting women in exchange for basic necessities such as food. The systemic failure that
exists in order to prevent these issues only reflects this patriarchal structure that goes on
within peacekeeping missions. For example, In Cambodia, a UN special representative
Yasuhi Akashi responded to the matter about sexual misconduct by stating ‘boys will be
boys’ (Simm, 2013). This statement not only diminishes the seriousness of the situation, but
also normalizes sexual violence as well as protects offenders of wrongdoing and taking
accountability. Furthermore, this undermines the integrity and reputation of liberal institutions
but also highlights their lack of ability in protecting their own population they are meant to
protect by showcasing the clear and obvious gendered inequality that occurs within
international politics. So whilst, at first glance, liberalism's support for institutions such as the
UN can be seen as an opportunity to create a more inclusive gender balance, it is revealed
that some of these institutions are instead rooted in patriarchal power imbalances due to its
underrepresentation of women.
International politics has been regarded as a topic influenced by state centric structures
rooted within established power dynamics. However, feminists within international relations
argue that it is extremely gendered, nurtured by everlasting constructed norms that promote
and prioritize masculinity whilst disempowering femininity. Within this essay, it will analyse
the extent to which this statement is true inside international politics, observing the
theoretical underpinnings and the systemic structures that shape our politics today.
This essay will begin with establishing and defining key terms such as ‘gender’ as well as
‘gendered politics’ then an evaluation of how historical IR theories and themes are
embedded with masculine norms. Further, it will explore critiques stemming from feminist
point of view that highlight the importance of gender throughout global governance.
Presented throughout, important examples including women's exclusion from the opportunity
to be heard within decision making roles and the gendered repercussions sustained from
war will showcase how international politics is unquestionably gendered. Nevertheless, it
also presents and demonstrates the ever-going advancement in how to address these
inequalities.
The term ‘gender’, ‘‘is by no means tied to material bodily facts but is solely and completely a
social construction’ (Butler, 2002). It refers to the socially constructed roles throughout
society in which every day social norms occur. The phrase ‘gendered’ through a political
perspective would be used to describe a system between men and women which prioritizes
and values a certain gender. Joan Acker described it as the “advantage and disadvantage,
exploitation and control, action and emotion, meaning and identity of men and women”
(Acker, 1990). In the theme of this essay, this would allude to the fact that organisations and
policymakers for example would prioritize attributes and characteristics linked towards
masculinity such as aggression, competition and dominance while discounting traits
associated with femininity. Feminist IR theory criticises the superiority of masculinity within
IR, proclaiming that women's experiences have been disregarded towards contributing to
global politics. J.Ann Tickner went as far to say ‘ there is little evidence to suggest that
women have played much of a role in shaping foreign policy in any country in the twentieth
century’ (Tickner, 1992).
Throughout time, traditional theories within IR have been criticised from feminist scholars
due to the heavy emphasis on masculine themes and traits. Involved in these theories
showcases state centric and militaristic approaches displaying a gendered viewpoint that
prioritizes masculinity.
Realism, a key theory within IR revolves around an anarchic system whereby a state acts as
a primary actor where survival is the fundamental objective. This realist concept is rooted
deeply in masculinity as it aims to enhance its military as well as economic power as an
indication of state strength, reflecting traditional beliefs about masculinity that align with traits
such as power and dominance. Furthermore, realisms approach to prioritizing its state
security disregards important factors such as access to healthcare, security and food which
as a whole, disproportionately affect women more. However, despite feminist critiques,
advocates of realism argue that it is not purposefully gendered, but instead designed as a
neutral framework used to address issues within international politics. It is used through an
anarchic system where survival may be prioritized more over other factors, an advocate
would suggest that realism does not purposefully belittle and ignore women or feminine
values but instead provides a realistic and rational approach in circumstances surrounded by
competition. Further, advocates for realism also suggest realists' emphasis on militarism
, does not take away from addressing human security problems. For example, realists
encouraging a role for the military during humanitarian situations such as NATO’s inclusion
in Kosovo or against ISIS are evidence that military power can be encouraged when used to
protect endangered populations such as women and children. Lastly, realisms prominence
on self-interest may be seen as a way to actually avoid conflict instead of promoting it.
However, feminist scholars would argue that even if realism was intended as a neutral
framework, its deep-rooted ideals stem from historical context that displays masculine power
structures. Feminists suggest that a genuine approach would embody a diverse outlook and
acknowledge that security involves more than state survival.
Another prominent theory within international politics exists Liberalism. This theory
encourages cooperation as well as promoting important international institutions to take
charge of global order. Initially, liberalism may seem less politically gendered then realism,
however feminist scholars would argue otherwise. The heavy emphasis on global institutions
fail to take account of the systemic gendered inequality that takes place within them,
therefore leading to the neglection that occurs toward women's voices. Major institutions
such as the World Trade Organization or United Nations can be used to highlight these
gender imbalances. Despite devotion towards equality, these institutions are still unable to
provide gender parity within decision making. For example, ‘women hold just 28.2 per cent of
management positions’ (UN Women, 2023). This underrepresentation within the UN will
affect the policy making decision as male dominated leadership may unconsciously blindside
the difficulties women face in conflict zones or even post conflict societies. Research from
True and Mintrom argue that ‘transnational networks have been instrumental in promoting
the diffusion of gender mainstreaming policies by framing issues in ways that resonate with
domestic concerns and by building coalitions with local actors’ (True & Mintrom, 2001). From
this, it suggests that the inclusion of a wide range of perspectives, particularly women and
those supporting gender equality, can lead to more socially acceptable outcomes. However,
initiatives that have been encouraged such as the ‘UN Security Council Resolution 1325’ do
recognize the need for gender equality within peace and security. This resolution promotes
women's participation in peace processes. However, it has also been criticised for being
symbolic rather than meaningful. Resolution 1325 fails to attack the deep-rooted structural
inequalities that diminish women in international politics. Throughout the article it ‘Urges
Member States to ensure increased representation of women’, however it does not carry out
adequate measures in order to guarantee its implementation (UN, 2000).
A key claim within liberalism is that international institutions such as the UN hold significant
responsibility in upholding peace and security. However, feminist advocates argue that
‘peacekeeping operations’ involve unstable gendered dynamics which instead encourage
further inequality as well as harm within conflict environments. A report on ‘Explaining sexual
exploitation and abuse in peacekeeping missions’ supports this claim (Karim, 2016).
Throughout this demonstrates multiple abuses of power within peacekeeping missions,
exploiting women in exchange for basic necessities such as food. The systemic failure that
exists in order to prevent these issues only reflects this patriarchal structure that goes on
within peacekeeping missions. For example, In Cambodia, a UN special representative
Yasuhi Akashi responded to the matter about sexual misconduct by stating ‘boys will be
boys’ (Simm, 2013). This statement not only diminishes the seriousness of the situation, but
also normalizes sexual violence as well as protects offenders of wrongdoing and taking
accountability. Furthermore, this undermines the integrity and reputation of liberal institutions
but also highlights their lack of ability in protecting their own population they are meant to
protect by showcasing the clear and obvious gendered inequality that occurs within
international politics. So whilst, at first glance, liberalism's support for institutions such as the
UN can be seen as an opportunity to create a more inclusive gender balance, it is revealed
that some of these institutions are instead rooted in patriarchal power imbalances due to its
underrepresentation of women.
