Feminist Critique of Realism in International Relations

When we study international relations, one theory tends to dominate the conversation: Realism. It tells us that states are the main actors on the world stage, that they operate in an anarchic system with no global authority above them, and that survival depends on power, especially military power. For decades, this framework has shaped how diplomats, scholars, and policymakers think about war and peace. But feminist scholars ask a sharp question that exposes a major blind spot: where are the women? Their argument is that Realism does not just ignore women by accident. It is built on assumptions about power, security, and human nature that are deeply masculine, and this makes its picture of the world incomplete.

What feminists are actually criticising
The patriarchal assumptions inside Realism
Conflict and competition as “natural”
Power as military might
The split between the public and the private
Tickner’s reformulation of Morgenthau
The state as a masculine protector
Where are the women? Enloe’s contribution
Redefining security
Why the critique still matters

What feminists are actually criticising

Feminist theory entered international relations in the late 1980s, and much of it began as a direct response to Realism. The criticism is not that Realism is simply wrong, but that it presents a partial view of how global politics works. As feminist scholar J. Ann Tickner argued in her landmark 1988 work, Realism is not an inaccurate portrayal of the international system but an incomplete one. It captures certain behaviours, mostly those associated with men in positions of power, and then treats this narrow slice of reality as the whole truth.

This matters because Realism has been the default lens for understanding everything from arms races to nuclear deterrence. If the lens itself is shaped by a single set of experiences, then entire categories of people, problems, and possibilities get filtered out. Feminists argue that the discipline became gendered from the start, functioning on an unequal basis that marginalises women’s voices and contributions in world politics.

The patriarchal assumptions inside Realism

At the heart of the feminist critique is the claim that Realism reflects how men have traditionally organised political life. Several core assumptions reveal this bias.

Conflict and competition as “natural”

Realism treats competition, distrust, and the pursuit of power as permanent features of human nature. States, in this view, behave like rational individuals in a hostile world where only the strong survive. Feminists point out that this assumption mirrors a traditionally masculine way of approaching problems. It elevates conflict and rivalry while quietly sidelining cooperation, negotiation, and care, which are equally real parts of human behaviour but are often coded as feminine and therefore treated as less serious.

Power as military might

For Realists, power largely means the capacity to coerce, primarily through military strength. Feminists argue this is a very narrow definition. It equates strength with weapons and domination, ignoring other forms of influence such as the ability to build relationships, sustain communities, or enable others to act. Tickner offered an alternative idea of power as mutual enablement rather than power as control over others, a reframing that opens up space for cooperation as a genuine source of strength.

The split between the public and the private

Realism focuses almost entirely on the public sphere of states, armies, and high-level diplomacy. It treats the home, the family, and everyday social life as politically irrelevant. Feminists challenge this directly. They argue that the private sphere, where women have historically been concentrated, is deeply connected to international politics. The famous feminist insight that the personal is international, and the international is personal captures this. The labour, care work, and social roles performed largely by women are precisely what allow states and economies to keep functioning, yet they remain invisible in Realist accounts.

Tickner’s reformulation of Morgenthau

The most influential feminist critique targets Hans Morgenthau, often called the father of modern Realism. In his classic text, Morgenthau laid out six principles of political realism. J. Ann Tickner systematically reworked each one to expose its hidden gender assumptions.

Morgenthau argued that politics is governed by objective laws rooted in human nature and that interest is always defined in terms of power. Tickner responded that objectivity itself is culturally associated with masculinity, while human nature is actually both masculine and feminine. By building his “objective” theory only on traits linked to men, Morgenthau produced a worldview that looks neutral but is not. Tickner also argued that national interest cannot be defined only in terms of power because it is a multidimensional concept that, at the global level, often requires cooperation rather than domination.

Tickner’s broader point was that Realism is built around an abstraction she and others called “political man,” a figure stripped of emotion, relationships, and moral restraint, who exists only to compete for power. She argued that this portrayal was partial, based only on behaviour we associate with masculinity. Real human beings, and the real conduct of states, involve far more than this.

The state as a masculine protector

One of the most powerful feminist arguments concerns how Realism imagines the state. In Realist thinking, the state is the central actor, a unified entity that defends its citizens and pursues its national interests in a dangerous world. Feminists ask an uncomfortable set of questions about this image.

First, who actually defines the national interest? Drawing on Tricia Ruiz’s influential analysis, feminists note that Realists overvalue the role of the state without questioning how the state itself is internally structured, both politically and socially. If the people defining national interest are almost entirely men from similar backgrounds, then the “interest” they identify may reflect their perspective rather than that of the whole population. Feminists ask: if women were genuinely included in these decisions, would the national interest, and the foreign policy flowing from it, look different?

Second, the state is often cast in the role of a masculine protector, the strong guardian who shields a vulnerable, feminised population. Cynthia Enloe examined this supposedly “natural” relationship between the protector and the protected in the context of national security. The problem is that this narrative reinforces a gender hierarchy. It positions men as active defenders and women as passive dependents who must be kept safe, which in turn justifies keeping women out of the decisions that shape security in the first place.

Where are the women? Enloe’s contribution

Cynthia Enloe, one of the pioneers of feminist international relations, gave the field its guiding question: where are the women? In her influential book Bananas, Beaches and Bases, she argued that gender is an organising principle of the world and that international politics depends on women’s labour far more than the headlines suggest.

Enloe traced how international systems rely on women in roles that Realism never counts: as workers on plantations, as labour in garment factories, as domestic workers, as the wives of diplomats, and as women living around military bases. By exposing this hidden architecture, she showed that the smooth functioning of trade, tourism, and militaries depends on placing women in disadvantaged positions. Far from being absent, women are everywhere in international politics. The discipline simply chose not to look.

Redefining security

Perhaps the most constructive part of the feminist critique is its call for a broader understanding of security. Realism defines security narrowly as the protection of the state from external military threats. Feminists argue this leaves out the things that actually make most people insecure.

A woman may live in a country at “peace” by Realist standards and yet face daily threats from domestic violence, economic dependence, lack of healthcare, or the loss of livelihood. For feminists, genuine security must include social justice, economic wellbeing, and equality, not just the absence of war between states. This is why feminist thinking connects closely with the wider idea of human security, which shifts the focus from the safety of states to the safety of individuals and communities.

This reframing has shaped real-world policy. In 2000, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security. It was the first formal document from the Security Council to require parties in conflict to protect women’s rights and support women’s participation in peace negotiations. The reasoning behind it echoes the feminist critique directly: as the UN puts it, there cannot be anything close to true peace if the needs and insights of half the population are ignored. Decades of feminist scholarship helped make that argument thinkable.

Why the critique still matters

It would be easy to dismiss all this as abstract academic debate, but the stakes are practical. The continued underrepresentation of women in top diplomatic and security roles is striking. Tickner observed that diplomacy, military service, and the study of international politics have long been male-dominated domains, where even women who break through rarely reach the highest levels. When the people analysing and making foreign policy share a narrow set of experiences, the resulting decisions reflect that narrowness.

The feminist critique does not ask us to throw Realism away entirely. It asks us to recognise what Realism leaves out, to question whose experiences have been treated as the universal standard, and to build a fuller account of global politics. By insisting that gender shapes power, security, and the state itself, feminists expand the questions we are allowed to ask about the world, and in doing so, they make the study of international relations more honest about the half of humanity it once overlooked.

What do you think? If the people who define a nation’s “interests” came from a wider range of backgrounds and experiences, how might foreign policy priorities change? And should security be measured by the strength of a state’s military, or by how safe its most vulnerable citizens actually feel in their daily lives?

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 5 / 5. Vote count: 1

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

References

PDF 📄

Table of Contents

What feminists are actually criticising 🔗

The patriarchal assumptions inside Realism 🔗

Conflict and competition as “natural” 🔗

Power as military might 🔗

The split between the public and the private 🔗

Tickner’s reformulation of Morgenthau 🔗

The state as a masculine protector 🔗

Where are the women? Enloe’s contribution 🔗

Redefining security 🔗

Why the critique still matters 🔗