Feminist Perspectives in International Relations

For most of its history as an academic discipline, International Relations told a story about states, armies, and the pursuit of power, but it left out roughly half the human population. Where were the women in this account of war, diplomacy, and the global economy? Starting in the late 1980s, a group of scholars began asking exactly this question, and their answers reshaped how we think about global politics. Feminist perspectives in International Relations do not simply ask for more women in foreign ministries. They argue that the very concepts at the heart of IR-power, security, the state, even what counts as “political”-were built on a partial, masculine view of the world.

The emergence of feminist perspectives in international relations
Foundational texts and scholars
Why traditional IR theory looks masculine
Tickner’s reformulation of Morgenthau
The problem of self-selection
Where are the women? Enloe and everyday politics
Gender, war, and security
The many strands of feminist IR
Liberal feminism
Standpoint feminism
Postmodern and poststructuralist feminism
Postcolonial feminism
Why feminist IR matters

The emergence of feminist perspectives in international relations

Feminist IR is a relatively young approach. Compared to other social sciences, gender entered the study of international relations quite late, arriving only at the end of the 1980s. This timing was not an accident. The end of the Cold War loosened the grip that military and security concerns had held over the field, and issues like ethnic conflict, economic globalization, human rights, and democratization began crowding onto the agenda. That opening created room for new voices.

The intellectual backdrop was what scholars call the “Third Debate” in IR, a clash between positivists-who treated the field as a value-neutral science with fixed structures like anarchy and the state-and post-positivists who questioned those assumptions. Feminist scholars joined this post-positivist turn, challenging what they called the “malestream” definitions of state, sovereignty, security, conflict, and peace.

A defining moment came in 1988, when the London School of Economics hosted what is often described as the first conference on women and international relations. Papers from that meeting were published in a special issue of the journal Millennium, and that collection helped launch feminist IR as a serious field of study. Soon after, scholars also established the Feminist Theory and Gender Studies section of the International Studies Association, giving the new approach an institutional home.

Foundational texts and scholars

A handful of books defined the field. Cynthia Enloe’s Bananas, Beaches and Bases (1989) and J. Ann Tickner’s Gender in International Relations (1992) became the works that students still read today. Tickner’s 1992 book reinterpreted core ideas like anarchy and power through a gendered lens to argue for a broader definition of security-one centred on human survival rather than only state survival. These early scholars shared a common observation: dominant theories like Realism and Liberalism either ignored or sidelined women’s roles in shaping global politics.

Why traditional IR theory looks masculine

Feminist scholars do not claim that mainstream theories are simply wrong. Their argument is sharper and more interesting: these theories offer a partial picture of reality, one that mistakes a masculine viewpoint for an objective, universal truth. The classic statement of this critique targets Realism, the most influential school in the discipline.

Tickner’s reformulation of Morgenthau

In 1988, J. Ann Tickner published an article examining the six principles of political realism laid out by Hans Morgenthau in his classic textbook Politics Among Nations. She argued that the way Morgenthau described and explained international politics was embedded in a masculine perspective. Importantly, she did not say Morgenthau’s “political man” was a false description. She argued it was incomplete-based only on behaviour we associate with masculinity.

Tickner then offered a feminist reformulation of each principle, and the contrast is illuminating:

Human nature: Morgenthau saw human nature as flawed and driven by a lust for power. Tickner argued this captures only one side of human experience and ignores capacities for cooperation and development that are equally human.

National interest: Where Realism defined the national interest narrowly as the pursuit of power, Tickner argued it is multidimensional-encompassing economic well-being, environmental concerns, and the avoidance of nuclear war.

Power: This is perhaps her most influential move. Realism understands power as domination and control-power over others. Tickner suggested an alternative conception of power as collective empowerment, or mutual enablement, acting with others rather than against them.

Morality: Realism keeps morality separate from politics in the name of objectivity. Tickner countered that all political actions carry moral significance, and that the realist preference for order over justice is itself a value-laden choice, not a neutral one.

Underlying all of this is a deeper claim about language and knowledge. Drawing on Evelyn Fox Keller’s work, Tickner argued that the discipline pairs masculinity with objectivity, rationality, and the public sphere, while associating femininity with emotion, subjectivity, and the private. Because IR rewards the first set of qualities, it presents itself as gender-neutral while quietly privileging a masculine worldview.

The problem of self-selection

Tickner offered a striking explanation for why so few women historically reached the top of foreign ministries and IR scholarship. She argued the cause was not only outright discrimination but also a process of self-selection that begins with the way the subject is taught. If students learn that war and power politics are spheres where men have a special expertise, the field starts to feel unwelcoming to women long before they ever apply for a job.

Where are the women? Enloe and everyday politics

If Tickner reworked IR’s theory, Cynthia Enloe rewrote its map. Her famous question-“Where are the women?”-forced the discipline to look in places it had always dismissed as trivial. In Bananas, Beaches and Bases, Enloe pulled back the curtain on familiar scenes: governments promoting tourism, companies moving factories overseas, soldiers stationed on foreign bases. In each, she showed that the landscape was not exclusively male, even when it appeared to be.

Enloe examined the lives of women whose work made global systems run but who never appeared in the textbooks-plantation labourers, garment factory workers, flight attendants, domestic servants, and the wives of diplomats. Her central insight is captured in a deceptively simple phrase: the personal is international, and the international is personal. The way a diplomat’s marriage is arranged, the labour that keeps a military base functioning, the gendered marketing of a holiday destination-these are not background details to global politics. They are the structures that international politics depends on.

This focus on the everyday was radical because it redrew the boundaries of the field. By showing how seemingly personal strategies are in fact the stuff of global politics, Enloe revealed the international system to be far more fragile-and far more open to change-than the grand theories suggested.

Gender, war, and security

Nowhere is the feminist critique sharper than on the subjects of war and security. Traditional IR equates security with the security of the state, measured in military strength. Feminist scholars argue this definition is dangerously narrow because it can leave individual human beings-and women in particular-deeply insecure even when their state is “safe.”

The problem starts with how women are portrayed in conflict. They are usually cast as vulnerable and in need of protection, a framing that pushes them out of decisions about war and peace altogether. Yet women are active participants in conflict in countless ways that the “protection” narrative erases. Feminist scholars also point out that sexual violence in war is too often treated as an unfortunate side effect, when in many cases rape has been used deliberately as a military strategy for ethnic cleansing and genocide.

This is why feminist IR pushed hard for the concept of human security-a shift in focus from the survival of states to the safety, dignity, and well-being of individuals. This reframing has had real-world policy consequences. The United Nations Women, Peace and Security agenda grew directly out of the recognition that peace built without women’s participation tends to be incomplete and fragile.

The many strands of feminist IR

It would be a mistake to treat feminist IR as a single, unified theory. It is better understood as a distinct discourse made up of several competing approaches, each emphasizing different problems and solutions.

Liberal feminism

Liberal feminists work largely within the existing framework of IR. Rather than overturning its core assumptions, they question its content-asking about the gender gap in global politics and the disproportionate harms war inflicts on women through displacement, sexual violence, and trafficking. Their main goal is securing equal rights and equal access to education, the economy, and political office.

Standpoint feminism

Standpoint feminists make a stronger epistemological claim. They argue that women’s knowledge, gained from a marginalised position, can offer fuller and more honest insights into world politics than the view from the centres of power. The perspective of those who keep systems running, rather than those who command them, reveals things the powerful cannot see.

Postmodern and poststructuralist feminism

Postmodern feminists go further still, rejecting the idea that any single theory can tell “one true story” about human experience. They are wary even of the category “woman,” arguing there is no single authentic women’s standpoint that can serve as a universal template. Their critique often targets the language and discourse through which gendered hierarchies become invisible and taken for granted.

Postcolonial feminism

Postcolonial feminists turn a critical eye on feminism itself. They argue that much feminist theory has been predominantly Western, white, and highly educated, and that it often ignores the perspectives of less privileged women in the Global South. Scholars in this tradition warn against representing women in developing countries as a single, undifferentiated group with identical interests, regardless of their class, ethnicity, or specific circumstances. This strand is especially relevant for understanding gender and global politics from the standpoint of formerly colonised societies.

Why feminist IR matters

The lasting contribution of feminist perspectives is that they expose what mainstream theories presented as neutral. Power, security, the state, and the global economy are not gender-neutral categories floating above human life-they are shaped by assumptions about masculinity and femininity that most theorists never examined. By insisting that women’s experiences, labour, and voices belong at the centre of the analysis rather than the margins, feminist IR makes the study of global politics more complete and more honest. It does not ask us to ignore power and conflict; it asks us to see them more fully.

What do you think? If concepts like “security” and “power” carry hidden gendered assumptions, how might foreign policy change if it were designed primarily around human security rather than state security? And do you think bringing more women into top diplomatic and military roles is enough to transform global politics, or does the deeper structure of the discipline need to change first?

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 5 / 5. Vote count: 3

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

References

PDF 📄

Table of Contents

The emergence of feminist perspectives in international relations 🔗

Foundational texts and scholars 🔗

Why traditional IR theory looks masculine 🔗

Tickner’s reformulation of Morgenthau 🔗

The problem of self-selection 🔗

Where are the women? Enloe and everyday politics 🔗

Gender, war, and security 🔗

The many strands of feminist IR 🔗

Liberal feminism 🔗

Standpoint feminism 🔗

Postmodern and poststructuralist feminism 🔗

Postcolonial feminism 🔗

Why feminist IR matters 🔗