Podcast on Feminist Theories in International Relations

Kapitoly

A Glaring Omission

Where Are the Women?

Deconstruct and Reconstruct

The Gendered State

Marriage, Violence, and the State

The Masculine Military

From One Question to a New Field

Throwing Like a Girl

Hierarchies and Power

An Evolving Movement

Not Just One Feminism

Intersectionality in Action

A Global Turning Point

Questioning the System

The Price of Unpaid Work

The Colonial Shadow

Saving Brown Women from Brown Men

The Fight of RAWA

A Principled Stand

Přepis

James: Most people think International Relations is all about big, abstract things—states, power, war, treaties.

Mia: Right. They picture a giant chessboard with countries as the pieces. But here's the shocker: what if one of the most powerful forces shaping that entire game has been almost completely ignored by the main rulebooks for decades?

James: Ignored? How? What force are we talking about?

Mia: Gender. It's not just about adding women into the picture; it's about understanding how our ideas about masculinity and femininity have built the entire system of international politics from the ground up.

James: Wow, okay. That's a huge claim. This is Studyfi Podcast.

James: So, Mia, you're saying that the classic theories everyone studies, like realism and liberalism, they just... missed this?

Mia: They didn't just miss it, James, their theories were built on its absence! Feminist International Relations scholars emerged in the late 1980s and essentially walked into the room, looked around, and asked, 'Hey, everyone... where are the women?'

James: A pretty fundamental question to ask.

Mia: You'd think so! They looked at all the dominant theories and realized they only reflected the experiences, roles, and status of certain men. It was like trying to understand an entire ecosystem by only studying the lions.

James: And you miss the lionesses, the zebras, the grass, the weather... everything that actually makes the ecosystem work.

Mia: Exactly. The scholar Charlotte Hooper explained that everything—from the subjects studied to the assumptions made—all worked together to make women's roles and concerns totally invisible on the world stage.

James: So the goal wasn't just to, say, add a chapter about 'women in politics' to the existing textbooks?

Mia: Not even close. That would be like adding a single vegetable to a fast-food burger and calling it a salad. The point wasn't just to add women, but to radically change the whole recipe.

James: Okay, so what did they do instead?

Mia: They took a two-pronged approach that one scholar, V. Spike Peterson, described as deconstructive and reconstructive.

James: Sounds complicated.

Mia: It's actually pretty clear. 'Deconstructive' means taking apart the existing theories. Critiquing them. Showing how they were biased and incomplete.

James: Like showing how the blueprints for the house are flawed.

Mia: Perfect analogy. And 'reconstructive' was about building something new. Introducing new theories and new methods to understand international politics in a way that actually includes everyone's experiences.

James: Can you give me a concrete example of this deconstruction and reconstruction in action?

Mia: Absolutely. Let's look at the biggest concept of all: the state. We think of the state as a neutral entity, right? But feminist scholars asked: if it's so neutral, why have women been almost entirely absent from its institutions for most of history?

James: That's a good point. You look at governments, parliaments, high-level positions... historically, it's overwhelmingly men.

Mia: Exactly. The UN even uses the representation of women in government as a key measure of a country's inequality. So feminist scholars dug into the 'why'. They went back to the foundational texts of political theory that IR scholars rely on—thinkers like Hobbes and Machiavelli.

James: The classics.

Mia: The classics! But here's the catch: these guys were writing at a time when women were legally considered the property of their male guardians. They had no legal status!

James: So the very ideas our concept of the state is built on come from a time when women were explicitly excluded from public life.

Mia: Precisely. Feminist theorists argue that the whole Western idea of 'politics' was constructed *through* the exclusion of women and everything associated with femininity, like emotion or the private, domestic sphere.

James: So it's not an accidental oversight; it's baked into the very definition of the state.

Mia: It gets even deeper. The scholar Carol Pateman argued that for Hobbes, the subordination of women through marriage wasn't just a social custom; it was a *necessary step* to create civil society and the state itself.

James: Wait, how does that work?

Mia: She writes that through marriage, men gained legal control over a wife's domestic and sexual services, a servitude guaranteed by law. The state essentially regulated that men were the rulers and women were the ruled.

James: So the state isn't a neutral protector. In this view, it's an active organizer of gendered power relations.

Mia: You got it. It establishes and enforces a power structure from the most personal level—the household—all the way up to the highest offices of government. It's not neutral at all; it's fundamentally gendered.

James: Okay, that makes sense for politics. What about something like the military? That seems very directly tied to international relations.

Mia: Great question, because the military is a perfect example of how these gendered beliefs play out. Think about the stereotypical image of a soldier.

James: A man. Strong, brave, a protector.

Mia: Exactly. Feminist scholars show how our beliefs about masculinity—being a protector, a ruler—are fused with our ideas about what a soldier is. The institution of the military is built to reflect and reinforce this idea of men as soldiers.

James: And that often means excluding women, right? Especially from combat roles.

Mia: Yes, based on the idea that they're incapable or need protecting. But as researcher Megan MacKenzie points out, this requires ignoring a ton of history and evidence of women actually fighting in combat.

James: So we hold onto the myth even when the facts contradict it.

Mia: We do, because it reaffirms that 'band of brothers' culture. And it has consequences for men, too. Scholar Aaron Belkin notes that this construction of military masculinity means soldiers have to prove they are 'not-feminine, not-weak, not-queer, not-emotional'.

James: Wow. So it ends up policing men's behavior just as much as it excludes women.

Mia: Exactly. It shows that the simple binary of men as protectors and women as the protected isn't 'natural' at all. It's constructed. It's built through beliefs, institutions, and politics.

James: So it all comes back to that first simple question: 'Where are the women?'

Mia: It does. That one question didn't just lead to finding women; it forced a complete re-examination of the most basic concepts in International Relations. The state, security, war, peace... all of it.

James: And the conclusion is that these things aren't gender-neutral. They're deeply shaped by power relations that are organized around gender.

Mia: That's the core insight. And it shows that you can't possibly understand how the world works if you're ignoring these fundamental power dynamics. This analysis reveals that relationships we assume are 'natural', like protector and protected, are actually legislated and politically constructed.

James: Which has huge effects, like erasing the violence that women experience, or even the violence they themselves commit.

Mia: You've nailed it. It opens up a whole new, and much more complete, way of seeing the world. A pretty powerful outcome from one simple, curious question.

James: It really is. Okay, that's a lot to think about. When we come back, we'll dive into another critical perspective that challenges the mainstream...

James: So that makes sense, social norms aren't set in stone. But how does that connect to something bigger, like feminist theory?

Mia: It's the perfect connection, actually. Feminist theory is all about unpacking those social norms. Let's take a simple phrase: 'throwing like a girl'.

James: Okay, I've definitely heard that one. And probably said it.

Mia: We all have! But think about it. Is there anything in female biology that prevents someone from throwing a ball well? Of course not.

James: It's about practice, and who gets encouraged to play sports.

Mia: Exactly! 'Throwing like a girl' isn't a natural state—it's a social construction. And it's loaded with judgment. It’s an insult, right? It implies being lesser than the opposite, 'throwing like a boy'.

James: Which is seen as the default, the normal way to throw.

Mia: Precisely. And feminists argue this structure—this binary opposition—is everywhere. One side is the primary norm, like masculinity, and the other is seen as a failure of that norm, like femininity.

James: So it's not just about difference, it's a ranking.

Mia: Yes, and it's hierarchical. What we associate with masculinity—like being rational or independent—is coded as positive. What we link with femininity—being emotional or dependent—gets coded as negative.

James: That feels like a massive oversimplification of people.

Mia: It is! And that's the point. Feminism isn't just about women; it's an analysis of this power structure and its effects on everyone. It’s a fight for equality so that nobody’s opportunities are limited just because of their gender.

James: So it's a tool for looking at the world differently?

Mia: A powerful one. It led to new ways of researching history, for example. Feminists started asking, 'Where are the women?' They rewrote histories that had either ignored women or treated them as footnotes.

James: I imagine the definition of feminism has changed over time, then.

Mia: Absolutely. It's a living, breathing social movement. In the 70s and 80s, the movement was challenged from within. Women of color, lesbian and bisexual women, and women from the Global South pushed back against a one-size-fits-all feminism.

James: What was their critique?

Mia: They argued that the movement often centered the experiences of white, straight, Western women. Activist Barbara Smith put it perfectly. She said feminism has to be about freeing *all* women... 'Anything less than this vision of total freedom is not feminism.'

James: That’s a powerful standard to hold.

Mia: It is. It forces the theory to keep evolving and to confront its own biases. It’s not a static textbook definition; it's a constant conversation about power, justice, and inclusion.

James: So it's a lens that's constantly being polished and re-focused. That actually leads perfectly into our next topic, which looks at how these ideas of power play out on a global scale.

James: So it really seems like these big political theories often miss the experiences of specific groups. I have to wonder, where does feminism fit into all this?

Mia: That’s the perfect question, James, because feminism directly challenges that oversight. But here's the first surprising thing—there’s no single definition of feminism.

James: Oh, I thought it was just about equality between men and women. Simple as that.

Mia: That's the core of it, absolutely. It’s fundamentally about equality, justice, and ending women's oppression. But it gets complicated because the experience of being a woman isn't universal.

James: What do you mean by that?

Mia: Well, early on, the movement struggled with inclusion. A middle-class white woman in London has a very different life than a working-class Black woman in Atlanta or a rural woman in Ghana.

James: Right, their challenges aren't the same at all.

Mia: Exactly. So feminist thinkers started asking not just, 'Where are the women?', but a much more specific question: 'Which women are where?' It forces you to look at how race, class, and location change everything.

James: So it's about looking at the full picture of someone's identity. Not just their gender.

Mia: Precisely. There’s a powerful example from 1977 in the U.S. called the Combahee River Collective Statement. It was written by a group of Black feminists.

James: What did it say?

Mia: They said they were fighting against racial, sexual, and class oppression all at once. Because for them, those things weren't separate. They experienced them as a single, combined force.

James: And they had a really interesting point, didn't they?

Mia: A revolutionary one. They said, 'If Black women were free, it would mean that everyone else would have to be free'. Because to achieve their freedom, you'd have to dismantle all the systems of oppression that harm everyone else, too.

James: Wow. That's a profound way to think about it. It’s not about one group getting ahead; it’s about lifting everyone up.

Mia: That’s the key takeaway. It’s about understanding that these systems of power are interconnected.

James: So when did these ideas start to get traction on a global scale? When did organizations like the United Nations start paying attention?

Mia: You'd think it would've been a long time ago, right? But the most visible turning point didn't happen until 1975 with the International Women's Year conference.

James: 1975? That feels... incredibly recent.

Mia: It is! That conference led the UN to declare 1976 to 1985 the Decade for Women. This was pivotal. For the first time, there was a huge, legitimate push to gather data on women's lives globally.

James: So before that, we just... didn't have the information?

Mia: We had very little. Think about that—just 50 years ago, the international community was finally admitting that women's contributions were even worth studying. It was groundbreaking.

James: So for centuries, the world basically just said 'we'll get to half the population later'?

Mia: Pretty much! And the research that came out was revolutionary. For example, a book by Ester Boserup in 1970 proved that women were essential to economic development, not just background players. That knowledge completely changed the conversation.

James: So to recap, it took dedicated feminist movements to force states and international bodies to even see women's roles in the world. It wasn't just handed over.

Mia: Not at all. It was a hard-fought battle to make the invisible visible. And that fight had huge consequences, especially when we start looking at how states conduct their foreign policy.

James: So it's not as simple as just getting more women into positions of power. That's a really important distinction.

Mia: Exactly. And that's the perfect entry point for what's called critical feminist international relations.

James: Okay, so how are they... well, critical? What are they criticizing?

Mia: Great question. They look at liberal feminism and say... hold on. You can't just try to redistribute power within the current system, because the system itself might be the problem.

James: The whole system? You mean like... capitalism?

Mia: That's a huge part of it. Critical feminists often draw from Marxist ideas. They argue that you can't understand gender oppression without also understanding class oppression and the global economy.

James: So it's like two problems tangled together.

Mia: Precisely. The theorist Iris Young put it beautifully. She said women's oppression comes from two systems: patriarchy, which is male domination, and the economic system, which creates class oppression. They're intertwined.

James: I think I'm following. Can you give me a real-world example of how that works?

Mia: Absolutely. Think about the idea of 'paid' versus 'unpaid' work. Scholars like Sandra Whitworth and Elisabeth Prügl studied big international institutions... like the World Bank or the International Labour Organization.

James: Okay, the big players.

Mia: Right. And they found that these institutions helped create and reinforce the idea that work done in an office is 'productive' and deserves a salary... while work done in the home, which is disproportionately done by women, is 'unpaid' and somehow less valuable.

James: Wow. So they basically institutionalized the 'double burden' — women working a paid job and then coming home to a whole second, unpaid job.

Mia: You've got it. It devalues women's work on a global scale. It's a key reason why we see what's called the 'feminization of poverty' worldwide. It's not an accident... it's a feature of the system.

James: And I remember reading that the economic effects of Covid-19 hit women, especially women of color, the hardest. This helps explain why.

Mia: It absolutely does. The entire structure was already tilted against them.

James: Now, the text also links this to something called postcolonial feminism. How does that fit in?

Mia: That's the next critical layer. Postcolonial feminists agree with all this... but they add the crucial dimension of colonialism and race.

James: So it's not just gender and class, but gender, class, AND the legacy of colonialism.

Mia: Yes. They warn against 'gender essentialism'.

James: That sounds complicated.

Mia: It just means the assumption that all women are the same and have the same experiences just because they're women. Postcolonial feminists say, 'absolutely not.' The experience of a white, wealthy woman in London is fundamentally different from that of an indigenous woman in Bolivia.

James: Right. Because of history. Because of colonialism.

Mia: Exactly. Colonialism wasn't just about conquering land. It was about controlling people... down to the most intimate parts of their lives. It created complex rules about who could have sex with whom, all based on race and power.

James: That's a really dark part of history.

Mia: It is. And postcolonial feminists argue those attitudes haven't gone away. They point to this dangerous idea of 'white men saving brown women from brown men'.

James: I feel like I've heard that before.

Mia: You have. It was a major justification used by the Bush administration for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The argument was, 'We have to invade to save Afghan women'.

James: They called it 'embedded feminism'.

Mia: That's the term. But many feminists, especially postcolonial ones, were horrified. They said this wasn't about saving women... it was about using a simplified version of feminism to justify a war.

James: It completely ignored the fact that Afghan and Iraqi women had been fighting for their own rights for decades.

Mia: Exactly! It painted them as passive victims waiting for a Western savior. It's a classic colonial mindset dressed up in new clothes. And it's a powerful reminder that we always have to ask... whose feminism are we talking about?

James: That is so important to remember. And it seems like these critical perspectives are what lead us directly into looking at things through an even more specific lens, like poststructuralism...

James: That's a really clear way to put it. So for our final topic, let's look at a powerful, real-world example... The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, or RAWA.

Mia: A perfect, and intense, case study. RAWA was founded in Kabul way back in 1977. Their goals were huge: women's rights, economic democracy, and a secular government where religion and politics were separate.

James: And this was just one year before the Soviet invasion, right? Talk about difficult timing.

Mia: Exactly. They immediately had to start resisting Soviet rule. But here's the surprising part—they never aligned with any other resistance movements, many of which were fundamentalists.

James: That sounds incredibly dangerous. Why go it alone?

Mia: Because of their principles. RAWA is anti-fundamentalist, though not anti-Islam. Their charismatic founder, Meena, was actually murdered for criticizing both sides—the Soviets and the fundamentalists.

James: Wow. So what happened after she was killed?

Mia: Incredibly, they became more public. One member said they knew there'd be more assassinations if they stayed silent. They figured if they became known internationally, it might actually scare their enemies.

James: So what was their stance when the United States invaded after 9/11? Were they allies?

Mia: Great question. And the answer is no. This is what makes them so unique. They criticized the US invasion, not just for its reasons, but for its effects on civilians.

James: So they were against the Taliban, but also against the force trying to remove the Taliban?

Mia: Precisely. They argued that the US attacks would actually empower fundamentalist forces in the long run. They also noted that local women's groups, like them, were completely ignored by the invaders who claimed to be 'liberating' them.

James: And considering the US withdrawal in 2021... they were sadly proven right.

Mia: Completely. It was a tragic prediction that came true. RAWA's story shows a form of feminism that is fiercely independent and critical of all forms of repression, whether foreign or domestic.

James: A powerful lesson to end on. That's all the time we have for today. Thank you so much, Mia, for breaking down these complex ideas for us.

Mia: Always a pleasure, James.

James: And a big thank you to all of you for listening to the Studyfi Podcast. Until next time, stay curious.