Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for feminism

feminism

Feminist Foreign Policy and South Asia: A scuffle between values and change

by

Nepalese Battalion received UN Medal.
Photo Credit: United Nations, licensed under Creative Commons.

‘The personal is political.’

The above sentence, coined by Carol Hanisch, encapsulates a simple yet pervasive truth about women and their struggles. Women’s lives in the public domain have for a long time been affected directly by gendered power hierarchies and beliefs. Their participation and inclusion in the public domain are determined by the norms and beliefs laid out in the society. However, this politics of domination and subjugation do not exist only in the public domain but also affect the personal lives of people. Personal spaces and family lives are governed by gendered notions that put men in a higher pedestal than women. The personal and political are intrinsically linked, for one, the values imbibed in the personal also influence the political behaviour of women.

South Asian women, have been historically marginalised and excluded from active participation in the political sphere. In recent times, multiple developmental programs have attempted to decrease the regional gender gap in education, employment and political participation by focusing on women centric development, however, the Global Gender Gap Report 2020, highlights that South Asia has the second largest gender gap among the eight other regions of the world.

The gender gap, visible in the education, social and employment sector, is also reflected in the foreign policy and diplomatic decisions of the countries in the region. Female representation remains scarce in important positions in the international arena. Diplomacy as such is a gender-neutral term that does not differentiate between male and female participants, however, the hierarchies established in these societies makes it a male-dominant field. Without proper representation of female voices remain unheard and neglected in internal and international spaces. Female political agency in most South Asian countries is scarce. Female parliamentarians make up only 13% of parliamentarians in India, 21 % in Bangladesh, and Nepal tops the list with women comprising 33.5 % of the federal parliament. Though these statistics show a considerable improvement from previous years , they are not proportional to the female population living in these countries.

Despite improvement in terms of the political representation of women in various South Asian countries, ground level problems remain which need to be addressed to ensure feminist outlooks are taken into context when making international decisions. Complex patriarchal power structures in these countries limit the participation of women. In Nepal, for example, the 2015 constitution prevents women from providing their child with the right to citizenship. The only parent able to confer Nepalese citizenship is a ‘male’ member of society. This prejudicial notion limits women’s participation in society. Their participation becomes directly linked to a male member of society and they their roles are confined as just daughters and wives This limitation in role also manifests in the political decision-making process in times of war and conflict where a similar binary between the genders is adopted, labelling men as the protectors while women are the objects that are need of protection.

In a similar vein, in India, through protests like that of Shaheen Bagh, political representation and inclusivity has improved , with more women asserting themselves in the public sphere. However, international and diplomatic decision-making persists in excluding women from senior positions. As Khullar highlights, a false hard-soft diplomatic dichotomy has been created where defence, military, power and security are reserved as male domains and diplomatic decision-making surrounding topics of international trafficking, migration, women empowerment and human rights are labelled as soft-domains. An outlook that women rely on emotions and focus on soft-issues is still prevalent in many countries in the region and women ministers are often assigned positions based on the same assumption while diplomatic decision-making remain dominated by male leaders. Therefore, the diplomatic and foreign policy structure that has been monopolised by men does not allow space for feminist voices.

Allowing women more representation not just in internal but also international politics will open up new avenues for countries to make way for a more inclusive society. A feminist foreign policy will ensure that women who are confined to the domestic spheres are also represented in the decision-making process. A feminist foreign policy (FFP) agenda can act as a fresh perspective and opportunity to view war and peace from a different lens. FFP emphasises that gender is not an accidental but an intrinsic part of military, economic and diplomatic relations between nations. It allows countries to develop a holistic outlook towards decision-making in the international security arena by incorporating the voices of women and other marginalised communities.

Women’s issues in many societies are viewed through a cultural lens of culture while issues surrounding men are considered political. These traditional notions bar women from being active participants in the political arena. The responsibility to protect and various international agendas are also used patriarchal tools to advance strategic interests in interventionist wars across the world where men are responsible for the protection of women. In the light of this underrepresentation and exclusion from the mainstream international agenda, the inclusion of women in negotiation tables and their decisions should be taken into consideration. Hearing the voices of people from traditionally underrepresented groups in society will shed light upon the intersectional impact of any decision-making process.

The war-peace dichotomy, a fixture of traditional foreign policy, can be overcome by addressing issues surrounding migration, border policing and increased securitisation through a feminist lens. South Asia has an admirable history in terms of women residing in positions of power with Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Nepal electing female leaders. However, despite such headline progress women in parts of South Asia are still subjected to discriminatory practices and are excluded from social and political participation. Adopting a feminist foreign policy in such a situation will allow countries in South Asia to assert their commitment to gender equality by addressing intersectional issues in both internal and international arena. Commitment towards a feminist foreign policy can also impact the global standing of countries and can help strengthen diplomatic ties.

Prostitution: Legalising and Regulating the Sex Trade

by

By Julia M. Hodgins

Photo by R. Kremming, courtesy of Picture Alliance

Regarding the oldest profession in history, policymakers face a central dilemma: are sex workers criminals or not? Is this profession legal or not? Around the world, some countries legalised and tried to regulate sex work by implementing control over sex trade venues in terms of formal operation and taxes, enrolling sex workers in programs controlling sexually transmitted diseases, and demarcating neighborhoods, being the most emblematic the Netherlands which in 2000 lifted the brothel ban. Kathryn Pataki argues that this policy has not, however, fixed the social stigma that perpetuates a double vulnerability effect: risking sex workers’ integrity outside their workplaces, and placing them in an asymmetrical relationship with their clients within that.

Regulations and policies, however, fail to address the key issue around which the industry is articulated: the demand for paid sex. Similarly, these policies perform an unintended structural abandonment of the vulnerable actors in that industry: the sex workers themselves. This perspective, adopted by Sweden in what is called the Nordic Model, brings a dramatic shift on the perceptions of who the perpetrators are and how to punish them, in a way that has led to (a) the protecting of the vulnerable actors; and (b.) disarticulating networks of abuse. This article addresses the question by contrasting the traditional standpoint about the legality of prostitution to the Nordic Model, explaining how the latter constitutes a replicable pathway.

The discussion about sex trade is complicated by the plethora of legality scopes. Excepting Nevada, sex work is illegal within the United States, punishing sex workers even if as a misdemeanor. The United Kingdom – and other European countries – limit the legality of sex trade based on age of consent, and control venues. In some cases, the organisation of sex trade is overseen as there are gaps in the jurisdictional law; for example in Canada since late 2014 it is legal to sell sex, but soliciting or organising it is illegal. In Peru, trading sex for money for over-age adults (18+ years old) is legal at a national level, though Lima’s bylaw overlaps by demanding the sex worker to carry a Sanitary Certificate. Also, when charged in an under- age court for breaking the Peruvian law, sex workers under 18 build a criminal record, while they are often controlled by pimps. This unseen inequality harms the vulnerable actor, the sex worker.

Sex workers take the legal burden of this business while being the less powerful ones in the unequal relationship with those who truly reap the profits. The stakeholders who do – legally or not – are those commodifying the workers: traffickers (i.e., dealers, pimps) and clients; therefore, they control sex workers’ lives, income, and legal and social stand. Also, this “business” is often connected to larger networks of human trafficking, child pornography, and other forms of abuse, facilitating its perpetuation. Traditionally, pimps and clients may not be liable for the most part since they are not selling sex. Also, traffickers may get away with child abuse when the latter’s presence goes unseen. The powerful stakeholders of this business, which resembles slavery, are generally less – if at all – punished, and obtain what they want, legally or not: sex for clients and profit for pimps. Meanwhile, the less powerful ones (sex workers) pay the social cost of the business, turning sex trade into the oldest oppression in the world.

The question of legality – that traps the person in a vicious cycle of prosecution, accusations, and condemnation – fades away when facing this crude and heartless reality. It seems reasonable that legalising prostitution in this context strengthens the dependence between workers and pimps, favoring the business for the latter, as observed by some analysts. Also, when the debate centers around the potential criminal condition of the sex worker, the discussion turns legal and thus further dehumanises the personal struggles against socioeconomic conditions, as well as de-emphasising the coercive power relations that stakeholders hold over those persons. The use of the plural form persons is purposeful, to perceive these individuals as humans by focusing on the pain they endure.

The system of regulation and legalisation implemented in Sweden, termed the ‘Nordic Model’, addresses many of the issues within the current debate. It places sex workers as victims of the abusive system, from which a small group of mighty stakeholders’ profits without being indicted. This new view legalises selling sex – but criminalises paying for sex – whilst simultaneously providing the victims with resources to overcome the abuse they have gone through, such as housing, training, and support. The goal is to help them exit the system that has them trapped, which they could not otherwise leave unharmed. After implementing the new perspective through policies, structural changes, re-education actions, new procedures, and systems, results show it is a win-win for both society and sex workers.

A feminist premise lies at the foundation of the Nordic model: sex trade is violence against women, and results from gender and power inequality. Under this perspective Sweden has developed a comprehensive set of sensitive policies and regulations, articulating official actors – police, social workers, prosecutors – into rescuing vulnerable persons and punish oppressive stakeholders. After 20 years, the results speak for themselves. Sex trade has seen a serious decline, buying sex cases have reduced to close to a half; and, it has become so shameful that offenders (“buyers”) prefer to plead guilty and pay the fine instead of going to trial. Moreover, the homicide of prostitutes in Sweden was zero in 2015 and one until 2018 by her ex-partner, while Germany – where sex trade is legal – registered ninety-one murdered plus forty-eight attempted murders between 2002-2018, either by pimps or by buyers.

The model raises a concern of under reporting as 0.8% of men in Sweden admit having purchased sex, as compared to twenty per cent  in the USA (at July 2020 Sweden’s population was 10,202,491 while USA was 332,639,102). Also, the Swedish Association of Sexuality Education considers that the model increases the stigma, which leaves the sex worker in a more vulnerable position. Although the system is not perfect, by putting the human stories harmed by sex trade at the center, Sweden has achieved to revise the matter of prostitution structurally, disbanding the vicious cycle that traps vulnerable persons. Also, by punishing the sex consumer and the “dealers”, the opportunities for a small group of powerful stakeholders to control, illegally, the lives of sex workers  are lessened, as well as international networks of trafficking.

Adopting and replicating the Model stirred the debate into new terrains, about the right of consenting adults who freely choose sex work, though is still unresolved, the counts of murdered sex workers decline. 

The article’s question is answered: Prostitution does not need to be questioned as legal or not. It needs to be attended as the dramatic reality trapping persons due to structural drivers, including coercion. The real crime is, rather, exploiting that vulnerability to satisfy lust and greed. The Nordic Model provides an innovative, empathetic, and effective policy approach to sex trade, worth to replicate. Despite not being ‘perfect’, it has provided solid results in terms of safety for the sex workers and decrease on both, prostitution and trafficking networks, by addressing the key element: the demand. 

 

Julia is a MA candidate in International Affairs at the Defence Studies Department, King’s College London, holds a BA-Honors in Sociology concentrated in Social Research, has lived and worked in South America and Canada.  Julia is a volunteer radio producer and an active member of feminist collectives. Her current interests are social equality, decolonization, gender security, cybersecurity, and strategy.

Notorious RBG: Justice Ginsburg and Shattering the Glass Ceiling

by

by Isabela Betoret

Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her chambers in at the Supreme Court on July 31, 2014.

Women belong in all places where decisions are being made.
– Ruth Bader Ginsburg

The passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who may be the most well-known US Supreme Court Judge in the world, feels like someone scratching at an already open wound. The underrepresentation of women in sectors from media to academia has been well documented. Leslie and Cimpian go as far as suggesting that women are underrepresented in any sector that is perceived to require raw ability and talent over effort.

Senator Mitch McConnel, in the same statement where he offered condolences to Justice Ginsburg’s family, said that congress would waste no time in approving Trump’s pick to replace her. As Justice Ginsburg was only the second of four women ever appointed to the Supreme Court, followed by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan, the odds are not in favour of the fifth being next. With McConnel in control of the senate, it is possible that a conservative pick could be approved before the election in November and a possible change in leadership, shifting the priorities of the court for generations to come.

And so, the wound reopens a little, we lose a woman in one of the highest positions of power. A role model to millions of female students and law graduates aspiring to the foremost jobs in the legal system, as well as to millions of women who benefited from the closer scrutiny Ginsburg gave to laws that affected them.

The women who occupy spaces in politics and conflict seem to be, largely, well known. Female heads of state are criticised for their every move, and it is far too easy to remember all their names because of the often-outrageous coverage they receive. Female professors, those who survived in a discipline that was for so many years hostile to our existence within it, are memorable. Though they are perceived to be less naturally talented, their brilliance has shone through years of doubt directed at them. Like Justice Ginsburg, they help millions find inspiration and courage by virtue of their work being published.

Though in the years since the women’s liberation movement there has been an influx of women into male-dominated fields, this was not often looked at in a positive light. Two studies one in 2016 and one in 2018 revealed that eighty percent of surveyed female European MPs had experienced acts of psychological violence; from harassment and misogyny to explicit threats of physical harm. Martin Van Creveld wrote that the more women who enter a profession the fewer men would remain due to its decrease in value because of ‘Feminisation’. Though he was referring explicitly to the Military, the roles for women in conflict areas has remained low. Women appear to be attacked for daring to enter the field, and then face constant threats and doubt once inside.

For all the inspiration they provide, women in positions of power in the realm of conflict and politics are rare. Statistics from the United Nations are staggering. Between 1992 and 2018 only thirteen percent of negotiators, three percent of mediators, and four percent of signatories in major peace processes were women; numbers which do not seem to have improved in the last couple of years. Before 2018 under fifty percent of humanitarian responses to conflict took into account gendered data. Studies have shown an increase of misogynistic and sexist speech by world leaders has increased the rate of violence committed against women. In January 2019 only 24.3 percent of parliamentary seats globally were held by women, and 19 women served as Head of State or Government. Only 21.7 per cent of Heads of Higher Institutions were women in 2017. And in the United Kingdom, women in academia were paid, on average, 15.1 per cent less than men in 2019.

With such numbers is it surprising that women like Ruth Bader Ginsburg are so widely admired? Despite the lack-lustre representation, there is now precedent for women in the world of conflict. Ginsburg did for the law what many women did in other fields. Marie Colvin for journalists and war correspondents; Condoleezza Rice, the first female Africa-American Secretary of State; Hillary Clinton, the first female presidential nominee for a major political party. But we must remember that for those doors to be opened the women who first walked through them had to live in conflict.

Ginsburg had to fight against blatant sexism in order to make it to the very top of the legal profession. She was demoted from her job at a social security firm when pregnant with her first child, leading her to conceal her second pregnancy almost to term. She was one of only nine female students at Harvard Law School in a class of five hundred, and every day her place there was questioned because of her gender. She worked on the legal side of the Women’s Liberation Movement, being one of the first to argue gender discrimination cases in the Supreme Court—where she had to teach the justices what that meant. Despite facing cancer five times, she only missed oral arguments twice due to illness. Many other women balance motherhood and the expectations of society with their careers and ambitions.

For the first time in history it became possible to urge before the courts successfully that equal justice under law requires all arms of government to regard women as persons equal in stature to men.
– Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Representation is not enough without inclusion. Tokenism will always fall short, and it will never give the minds of women the credit they deserve. We do not fight to have a woman be placed on a position of power because she is a woman; rather, we argue that she belongs there because of her brain, of her ability, her passion, and these should not be devalued because of her gender.

Self-belief, it would seem, is not an attractive quality in a woman. We are constantly forced into being humble and modest until we stop believing in all the things we are capable of. Women are now represented, if poorly, in conflict resolution and politics. Women have always been a part of the history of war, be it in the home front or on the battlefield—but femininity is often absent, both in men and women, in this field. To survive in the world of conflict we must harden our edges and adopt many of the qualities of the masculine workforce we enter.

According to a study by Krause and Bränfors, those precious few instances where women are sitting at the negotiating table during peace processes tend to end in a more durable peace. The same study found that ‘peace agreements signed by women show a higher number of agreement provisions aimed at political reform and a higher implementation rate of these provisions.’ Through the Coronavirus Pandemic countries led by women were said to have a better response to the crisis. The answer does not necessarily lie in their gender or biology, women are not genetically pre-determined to make more effective leaders. Helen Lewis argues that a shift in leadership style, away from the strongman, the traditional masculine leader in the time of uncertainty (be it male or female) is occurring. A change of perspective is suddenly welcome, and it would appear many new ideas and styles are being brought forth by women—but more importantly, people seem to be listening.

If our field could do with more women, it could also do with the qualities of individual women, not merely having us imitate what has already been done in order to have a seat at the table. Like Ruth Bader Ginsburg we can teach those around us why our perspective is unique, and both men and women can benefit from it. Despite Van Creveld’s objections, a change of perspective may not be so wholly disastrous.

Women like Ruth Bader Ginsburg matter and we feel their loss so acutely because there are few examples for us to look up to. Few encouragements to put pen to paper—or fingers to keyboard—and have the courage to say: this is what I think, and I know it has value; I know it is good, and you will listen to it not because I am a woman, but because what I have to say matters.

Justice Ginsburg once said ‘I think I was born under a very bright star.’ Ginsburg knew what her life meant, and she believed in all she had achieved. Not only was she proud of her legacy, but she also inspired women all over the world to be proud of their own accomplishments. The remedy to the pain, and the only way to close the wounds left behind, is not for one woman to take her place—but for all of us to do so. For every single one of us to take the inspiration she gave and believe in our own potential. As Justice Ginsburg once replied when asked when there would be enough women in the Supreme Court: ‘When there are nine.’

Isabela Betoret is the Outreach Coordinator in charge of the Women In Writing Mentoring Scheme. The Scheme is an opportunity for women undertaking an MA at King’s College London to interact with a network of similar-minded people, build a community, become familiar with the world of academic publishing, and improve confidence in their writing skills. The Scheme exists to be the outstretched hand welcoming you to our community, the rest is up to you. If you would like to know more about Women In Writing or apply to the scheme you can do so here.

International Women’s Day Special: an Interview with Professor Vivienne Jabri

by

By Sofia Lesmes

8 March 2019

International Women’s Day is celebrated annually on 8 March to raise awareness for women’s rights. (AFP/Getty Images)

 

In a special International Women’s Day edition, Strife’s Sofia Lesmes sat down with Professor Vivienne Jabri to discuss the legacy of International Women’s Day, the intersection of feminism and the arts, and feminism’s important role in conflict and its study.

Professor Vivienne Jabri is a professor of International Politics at the Department of War Studies and was founding Director of London Interdisciplinary Social Science Doctoral Training Partnership (LISS DTP). Her research focuses on international political theory, critical social and political theory, postcolonialism, and feminist perspectives, with specific interest in the politics of conflict, violence and security practices. In 2016, she was the co-curator of the exhibition Traces of War at the Inigo Rooms, Somerset House.

S: International Women’s Day has been in existence since 1911. How do you see the role of the day evolving into 2019?

VJ: It’s interesting how a day that celebrates women is actually controversial. March 8th is not always internationally recognised as International Women’s Day. For feminists internationally, it celebrates the agency of women; it’s a day to celebrate what women bring to the political sphere, to business, and to all walks of life in a larger context of society. In some societies, it’s a day of celebration of women per se, so women receive flowers, for example, and you might consider that to be rather apolitical. But within a global context, it has become a political event because it’s seen as part of the feminist armoury for celebration as well as protest. It’s certainly a day that I consider to be very important as a feminist and scholar in international politics.

And you would think that in the twenty-first century, we wouldn’t need such a day to emphasize women’s position in society or the inequalities that still exist between the genders. We are increasingly talking about misogynistic acts that women go through because they are women — issues that are very much present in our current public discourses, if you consider the levels of daily and routine violence that is directed at women, the use of violent language through social media, and the murder of women in politics, including amongst others, Jo Cox in the UK; the feminist and LGBT campaigner in Brazil, Marielle Franco; Aquila Al-Hashimi in Iraq; and Sitara Achakzai, a leading campaigner for women’s rights in Afghanistan. It’s important to celebrate the day, but it’s also important to remember it is as part of the continuing struggle for women’s equality.

 

S: Your research has focused on feminism and the political sphere of international relations. How do you see internationalist feminism aligning with the range of conflicts around the world today?

VJ: So, feminism in international relations contributes a great deal in relation to understandings of conflict and security, and it has become a very large research agenda within international relations as a discipline. In terms of my own work, I take a feminist discourse and the history of feminist thought, within wider critical thought, in order to understand war and politics, to see what war does to the political context internationally. Though the titles of my works do not always have the concept of ‘gender’, feminist political thought is a great influence. I’ll give you an example of how that works because it’s not always straightforward. If you consider interventionist war, it brings up a discourse of protection. The interventions in Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or in other parts of the Middle East, were legitimised through a discourse of protection, of civilians generally, and in Afghanistan, of women. It’s a powerful legitimising discourse that enables such interventions to take place. So where does feminism come in? In the history of feminist thought, the construct of ‘protection’ immediately suggests a power relationship; it suggests that women lack agency and, therefore, call for the protection of men. Protection as a concept is very gendered, and it is understood as such in feminist thought. So what’s happening in these interventionist contexts is the infantilization of the populations involved, just as you have the infantilization of women in the discourse of protection. Interventionist warfare uses the trope of care and protection in order to legitimise what are in effect militarised interventions that primarily affect populations. In Iraq, an early estimate of casualties as a direct consequence of the intervention suggested around 600,000 civilians had been killed.

Similarly related to my work on subjectivity, it (my work on feminism) analyses what war and conflict do to the subject of politics. Once again, feminism has a great deal to say on subjectivity, particularly post-structural feminism. Feminism has always understood subjectivity as a product of power relations, especially, I would say, within the post-structural understanding. The aim there is to problematise the notion of the subject in politics, to understand the complexity of the subject and the situatedness of the subject in relation to matrices of power.

So, why is feminism important to me? It tells us a great deal about how power operates in its very microcosm. While realism, for example, may look at power relations in a broader perspective that takes ‘the state’ for granted, international feminist theory looks at power in a way that is microcosmic, that unravels how structures of power impact on the body, the self, and gendered socio-political and economic relations. Indeed, a Foucauldian understanding of power is also microcosmic, but not necessarily as specific as feminist conceptions of power.

 

 S: The exhibition you co-curated in 2016 focused on the traces that war and conflict leave on daily lives, and the unlikely places that a war can affect. If feminism is moving the private into the public and the personal to the political, how do you see this in its relationship with the traces that war leaves in daily lives?

VJ: The idea of the trace is suggestive of war having an impact — a continuing one — on bodies, bodily movement, psyches, landscapes, and language. This was important to capture in Traces of War, because whereas war understood conventionally is a crisis that is happening ‘over there’ on a battle field, war’s impact on space and time goes well beyond that battlefield. Such impact is inherited across generations, and its traces, as we sought to reveal in the exhibition, permeate the everyday, or the seemingly everyday, and the routine. What that means is that the assumed distinction between war and peace is not as clear cut as the dichotomy might suggest, and, as you know, feminism has always been interested in the everyday. If you think about Simone de Beauvoir, she distinctly writes about the everyday positionality of women and how the socio-political constellation of forces impacts the lives of women and their unequal status. In an exhibition on ‘traces of war’, the challenge was to engage with how the trace can carry within it deeply rooted forces that perpetuate war and its injurious acts, impacting on memories, bodies, articulations of subjectivity, bodily movement and trauma, the language of love in the midst of war, and imperial and postcolonial landscapes that inflict and bear continuing warfare.

In an exhibition like Traces of War, you also have a discussion with your co-curator (in our exhibition, Cecile Bourne-Farrell) and with the involved artists, since each one had a unique perspective. Jananne al-Ani looked at traces of war upon landscapes, where she’s specifically focused on postcolonial perspectives. Her work focuses on aerial views of landscapes, essentially to show that even in a supposedly peaceful setting such as the Kent countryside, there are layers and layers of warfare that can be found in excavation of the land. And the genius of someone like Jananne Al-Jani is that she evokes those layers of warfare and colonialism from the air because she’s not excavating like an archaeologist would. The idea of excavation is very important when we want to understand relationships of power globally. We learn from Michel Foucault that to understand how power operates in the present, you excavate archaeologically into the past in order to understand the conditions that have generated power relations today. The question of power and subjectivity was also crucial in our exhibition, and this theme was also evident in the works of Baptist Coelho and Shaun Gladwell.

 

 S: There is no shortage of different approaches to the intersection of feminism and international relations. How do you see different approaches converging when it comes to conflict and war?

VJ: There are different conceptualisations of feminist theory in international relations and within the broader feminist movement. I think it’s important to continue to problematise the relationship between the public and the private, for example in the sphere of social media, where the right to privacy is most blatantly challenged and where violent misogynistic threats are made against women.  Often, the way in which women are attacked is through sexuality, which is a very highly gendered discourse that seeks to limit, and not to mention completely undo, women’s agency.

It’s important to recognise that misogyny is so deeply rooted even in societies where you might think that we’ve achieved, in terms of legislation and public policy, a certain level of equality between the sexes. This is evident in what’s happening in the present political context, both domestically and internationally, where women become targets of violence and exclusionary practices, and this is especially the case for women involved in rights campaigns. For the contemporary extreme right in the US and Europe feminism as such has become a target.

Regarding conflict and locations of war, the research question on how women’s agency in a context of war is articulated is highly salient. Women are certainly a part of warfare; they join up with conflict groups and are a part of militaries, and questions relating to women ‘joining up’ must unravel how gender plays a part. Then, there are broader questions on how women’s agency and gendered institutional practices influence war and politics. These questions are all to do with how gender impacts governing practices — and that’s what the feminist agenda is all about. Going back to someone like Cynthia Enloe, who remains a major voice in feminist international relations, Ann Tickner and Christine Sylvester — these are founding voices in feminist international relations and should be included in every International Relations and War Studies reading list. Then there is the current generation of feminist voices in international relations: people like Dr Hannah Ketola and Dr Maria O’Reilly, both of whom were my PhD students and produced brilliant research on gender in the post-conflict context. I would say feminism is one of the most flourishing fields in international relations.

Sofia is a final year student reading History & International Relations and a BA representative for Strife. She has worked as an intern at her local U.S. House District office, in addition to having extensive experience in the private sector. Her academic interests include analysing the U.S. and UK’s ‘special relationship’ from a historical perspective, coercive diplomacy, and ethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia. You can follow her on twitter @slesmes98.

Professor Jabri’s latest book is The Postcolonial Subject (Routledge, 2013). An overview of Traces of War is available here.

Read more about more about International Women’s Day and its charity partners here.

Image  source: https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/when-is-international-mens-day-2019-uk-imd-womens-day-a4085441.html.

A Man’s World: Masculinity in International Politics

by

By Eve Gleeson

7 December 2018

There is a gender gap in having your voice heard (and listened to) in international relations. (Image credit: Ellen Weinstein for Politico)

International politics is a man’s world. The practice of international relations, defined by constant efforts to identify and solve bilateral, multilateral, and global issues, has historically been guided by initiatives reflective of the experiences, interests, and characteristics of Western hegemonic masculinity.  

Besides the practice itself, membership and leadership ranging from research institutions like The Brookings Institute and news outlets such as The Economist to governance bodies like the African Union are evidence of unequal gender representation that permeates through the field. Perhaps less obvious is the masculine nature of the content and character of such organisations and their traditional approach to addressing issues spanning from political economy to security and conflict.    

States as a reflection of the patriarchy

There are parallels between key topics in the field of international relations and the facets of masculine culture, such as power, hegemony, conflict and weapons development, colonialism, and the global economy. A popular theory argued by scholars across the board is that states themselves are an expression of patriarchal power; ‘Leadership itself is monolithic, hierarchical and violent,’ argues John Hoffman.[1] The idea of concentrating power in the hands of one person, regardless of gender, so that this individual may execute dominance over the all other actors is itself a masculine concept based on hegemonic masculinity, a characteristic that glorifies the essence of ‘manhood’ as physical power, heterosexuality, elitism, and sexual dominance.[2]  

These ‘manly’ states have been built by men around the interests of men. This is evident especially in older states, whose political structures were built when women had limited rights as citizens. From the beginning of organised statehood, a state was constructed and then led by a ‘hegemon.’ According to realists like John Mearsheimer, a hegemon is a nation-state at the pinnacle of security from external threats and is idealised for its capacity to manipulate actors both within and beyond the level of the state (for example, the United States is thought of as the current hegemon, following Great Britain’s decline after the Second World War. Many scholars believe China will be next).[3] This hegemon dictates the successes or failures of its subordinates through diplomatic maneuvers coupled with overbearing military and economic power, as Alfred Mahan discusses in his history of naval warfare.[4] The idolisation of this kind of power reflects the masculinity of the international community, as each state desires to rise high enough to dictate the proceedings of every state functioning below itself.  

The gender of war 

War, violence, and the military are archetypically masculine. The notion of the ideal man is equated to the ideal soldier– someone whose belligerence and physical prowess defines manhood.[5] In his case study on the US Navy, Frank Barrett emphasises the conflation of masculine identity with ‘autonomy and risk taking’, ‘perseverance and endurance’, and ‘technical rationality’ among US Naval officers.[6] While service in the military is applauded as a demonstration of defending one’s country, long term non-violent peacebuilding efforts geared toward sustainable progress are not equally as praised as exhibitions of courage, valour, or patriotism. The value of these efforts to their nation is indisputable, though doing so as a force preserving and enforcing peace rather than quelling and inciting violence is at odds with the masculine conception of a state’s power.  

Perhaps unsurprisingly, weapons themselves are gendered to reflect traditional features of femininity and masculinity. Catastrophic weapons like nuclear bombs and warheads have historically been related to masculine characteristics. Carol Cohn, a feminist international theory icon and scholar in conflict and security, details that missiles carrying a nuclear payload are often spoken of in reference to ‘deep penetration’, ‘thrust to weight ratios’, and ‘vertical erector launchers’. Sexualising a weapon with phallic imagery suggests this decisive power that a weapon possesses.[7] The conviction that military capacity is a harbinger of a state’s power signals the primacy of ‘maleness’ in the social order, while an abundance of research suggests a state’s economic stability to be contingent on other factors such as quality of education and gender equality.[8]  

Security itself is a male-dominated field that concerns topics from military occupation and conflict to trade and energy — all of which are masculinised concepts that have preserved the technical jargon which insulates the field from a more humanistic narrative. Carol Cohn argues that by presenting information in a logical format using coded language, such as complex terminology and acronyms, harsh material is ‘softened’. One of her examples was a term applied to a type of bomb whose destructive explosive power destroyed the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. This particular type of weapon is referred to as a ‘clean bomb’, referring to its lack of lingering radiation effects. This terminology avoids the emotional fallout associated with admitting plans for ‘mass murder, mangled bodies, and unspeakable human suffering.’[9] The vernacular used by security and defense intellectuals shows the exclusive and inaccessible nature of the content. When the conversation is driven by euphemisms, it’s easy to downplay the gravity of military mobilisations and hard to recognize the dynamic and intersectional nature of conflict.  

Security as a women’s issue 

Additionally, a state’s quality of security has been linked with women’s security; as gender equality improves (e.g. through political representation or civil rights), the security of the state improves. This results from increased productivity in multiple economic sectors, elections that provide gender-diverse political representation, and the safety and security of more demographics.[10] The way women are affected by insecurity may not be addressed by typical ‘malestream’ approaches to security issues, as their insecurity results from their roles in society which often differ from roles traditionally taken by men, as the textile, education, and social work industries indicate. These industries are often overlooked and even disregarded in male-dominated international political discussion. This gendered hierarchy exacerbates insecurity for women, who, in most states, make up half a state’s population and whose safety is contingent upon conscious efforts by the state.  

The ingrained masculinity of this field can be distinguished through trends of colonialism and military occupation that have been plagued with the sexual exploitation of native women in colonised and occupied countries. Feminist international relations scholar Cynthia Enloe details this in her review of American troops in the Philippines in the 1980s and their troubling relationship with native women.[11] Colonialism, a consequence of a strong state’s entitlement to “invade” or “penetrate” an unsuspecting weaker state, channels norms of masculine sexual aggression through the idea that the protector or conqueror can rightfully exploit the feminine, or feminised, object.[12]  

Women in the economy

The market and economy also reflect male-dominated spaces. The economy is propelled by productivity in labour and employment, but scholars often fail to consider how the exclusion of women from the labour market and the fields of work where female workers are most often exploited. The textile industry, on which many multinational corporations rely, has been criticized for labour exploitation, as substantiated with incidents at Nestlé, Nike and Coca-Cola. Abuse runs rampant through Bangladesh’s garment industry, where women of all ages and socioeconomic classes are exploited.[13] Established theories of economics have disregarded how women’s limited political freedoms, labour rights, and access to education stifle economic growth, especially since the study of economics began far before women contributed to economic prosperity. The field is also discussed by professionals who use structured arguments of supply and demand, which are undoubtedly critical, though a qualitative understanding of global economics considering the foundations of the marketplace reveal how traditional gender roles, like women in informal economic positions such as child care professionals and domestic workers, impact the economy.[14]  

By excluding the female perspective on important issues like security, the concerns of which are experienced differently by women than men, thought-leaders perpetuate an approach to problem-solving that focuses on more established approaches to international challenges that idealize power, subjugation, aggression, conquest, autonomy, and hegemony. Diplomacy, a practice among states to negotiate contrasting national interests to reach common goals, can be complicated by this illustration of hegemonic masculinity. A political ‘strongman’ has come to describe authoritarian political leaders like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin whose leadership style derives from resistance to external suggestions, hostility towards opponents, and rejection of institutional authority. This is a culture of a ‘my way or the highway’ type modern diplomacy, indicating a hesitation toward collaborative or intersectional approaches, and resistance toward making concessions for fear of emasculation. However, intersectionality and a diversity of contributions to problem­-solving can create solutions that are more dynamic, amenable, and responsive to unpredictable environments.   

From the outside looking in, female professionals in international politics recognise the necessity for diverse opinions on issues, as Michèle Flournoy emphasised in an interview with Susan B. Glasser — ‘the more diverse the group around the table making decisions, the better the performance of the organization and the better the quality of the decision-making.’ As victims of exclusion from a system that determines how to mediate global issues, women are in a special position to criticize how their approach to and involvement with international politics differs from the established ways, and how it could improve the efficiency of the system. In reality, global issues impact both men and women, and often in very different ways. The tendency for discussion on these issues to be led by men — in systems constructed by men, that are reflective of the characteristics of men — makes it so that these approaches often fail to consider women’s issues and instead idolise masculine solutions.    

Eve Gleeson is a master’s student in International Relations at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London, as well as the Communications Manager of Strife. Her courses focus on security challenges in the evolving global context, including cyber threats, nuclear and biological programs, and security in new states. Eve holds a BA in International Studies with a focus on conflict and security from Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. You can find her on LinkedIn and on Twitter @evegleeson_.

Notes:

[1]Hoffman, John. “Patriarchy, Sovereignty and Realism.” Gender and Sovereignty: Feminism, the State and International Relations, Palgrave, 2001, p. 9.  

[2] Connell, R. W., and James W. Messerschmidt. “Hegemonic Masculinity.” Gender & Society, vol. 19, no. 6, 2005, pp. 829–859. SAGE, doi:10.1177/0891243205278639.  

[3] Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton & Company, 2014

[4] Mahan, Alfred Thayer. The Influence of Sea Power upon History: 1660-1783. Dodo Press, 2009

[5] Mishkind, Marc E., et al. “The Embodiment of Masculinity.” American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 29, no. 5, 1986, pp. 545–562., doi:10.1177/000276486029005004.  

[6] Barrett, Frank J. “The Organizational Construction of Hegemonic Masculinity: The Case of the US Navy.”Gender, Work & Organization, vol. 3, no. 3, July 1996, pp. 129–142., doi:10.1111/14680432.00011.  

[7] Cohn, Carol. “Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 12, no. 4, 1987, pp. 687–718. JSTOR, doi:10.1086/494362.  

[8] Global Gender Gap Report 2015: The Case for Gender Equality.” World Economic Forum, 2016, reports.weforum.org/globalgendergapreport2015/thecaseforgenderequality/.  

[9] Cohn, “Sex and Death” p. 696  

[10] Hudson, Valerie M., et al. “The Heart of the Matter: The Security of Women and the Security of States.” International Security, vol. 33, no. 3, 2008, pp. 7–45. MIT.  

[11] Enloe, Cynthia H. Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. University of California Press, 2014.  

[12]  Youngs, Gillian. “Feminist International Relations: a Contradiction in Terms? Or: Why Women and Gender Are Essential to Understanding the World We Live in *.” International Affairs, vol. 80, no. 1, 2004, pp. 76., doi:10.1111/j.14682346.2004.00367.x.  

[13] Ahmed, Fauzia Erfan. “The Rise of the Bangladesh Garment Industry: Globalization, Women Workers, and Voice.”NWSA Journal, vol. 16, no. 2, 2004, pp. 34–45., doi:10.1353/nwsa.2004.0042.  

[14] Hochschild, Arlie, and Barbara Ehrenreich. Global Woman: Nannies, Maids and Sex Workers in the New Economy. Owl, 2004.  

Image source: https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/women-rule-politics-graphic/