Amish Mamtora

Student No. 574570

LP2014 International Relations: Theories & Issues

Feminism defines gender as a social construction. What does that mean? What kinds of questions does IR feminism try to answer using gender as a category of analysis? (3000 words)

When attempting to answer the question What is meant by gender as a social construct we must first establish the existing different definitions of gender, then apply the relevant definition in an International Relations context. In the following assignment I will attempt to define and discuss feminism and gender from an IR perspective, as I understand it. I hope to display my understanding of the questions that IR feminism tries to answer through the tool of gender analysis, as well as the questions it raises about the historical view and current view of gender today. The most common or widely used reference to gender is to denote the biological sex of a person, whether they are male or female. Gender can also be used to display the relationship between the sexes in any given society and culture, it can therefore be noted that gender is related to, but not the same thing as, biological sex. (Steans and Pettiford, 2001. p153). Within IR feminism the definition of gender does not specifically focus of the physical sex of a person, but rather the characteristics or traits a person has that have been associated with either masculinity or femininity. According John Baylis in The Globalization of World Politics IR feminism defines gender as a set of socially and culturally constructed characteristics that vary across time and place. (Baylis, 2011. p265). It is often mistaken that gender in IR refers more closely to women and is centred on woman s rights and equality between the sexes. In my opinion this is a narrow-minded perspective to adopt. Gender today is as much about men and masculinity as it is about women and femininity. (Steans and Pettiford, 2001. p152). A social construct can be loosely considered as anything a group, community, society or indeed any demographic, believes to be true, correct or the norm based on any subject or question raised. This is my own opinion and definition, adapted from wide reading on social constructivism where I failed to find a fitting or adequate definition of the term for use in this assignment. When using an IR feminism definition of gender as a social construct, we can see that IR feminism is suggesting a number of things. Firstly that gender differs between social and cultural environments. Where one trait or characteristic may be seen as highly masculine in one setting, it could also be seen as less masculine or even feminine in another setting. Therefore gender and its application as a term and as an analytical tool is relative and contestable. Another implication of gender as a social construct is, that as a construct it is a man made creation based on the existing IR system and is structured according to the existing paradigms, as such I feel that it is likely to be imperfect or flawed. John Baylis tells us that traditionally, when we think of characteristics such as power, strength, rationality, competitiveness and autonomy we associate them with masculinity, or what it is to be a real man . In contrast, traits such as weakness, nurturing tendencies, dependence, caution, emotionality and empathy are associated with femininity. (Baylis, 2011.). 1

Amish Mamtora

Student No. 574570

Today gender can be seen as a system of social hierarchy, society is presently dominated by masculinity and male characteristics where female traits are seen as less valuable or necessary. Evidence for this comes from facts and figures such as, - women own about one per cent of the world s property. (Jackson and Sorensen, 2003. p274.). Jackson and Sorenson also cite the United Nations development Program, UNDP, in the 2007 Third edition of their book, - Women in developing countries tend to carry an even larger share of the workload -on average 13% higher than men s share. (Jackson and Sorenson, 2007. p262.). This inequality means that gender becomes especially relevant when discussing issues related to power, inter-gender relationships, and distribution of social benefits and cost. Feminists raise a number of questions linked with this biased view of gender today. What would it mean for world politics and International Relations today if women or feminine characteristics were more dominant? How would we deal with issues such as war, conflict and security if equal importance was given to less masculine methods of action? What would be the impact on policymaking in less patriarchal society where foreign and security policies are often legitimated through appeals to various types of masculinity ? (Baylis, 2011.) It is because gender so clearly shows inequality that it can be used as analytical device. Feminists argue that unequal gender structures have to first be recognised so that we can affect change in the future. Now that we have briefly explored how feminism defines gender, as well as the how and why it describes it as a social construct, we can investigate and attempt to dissect the kinds of questions [IR feminism tries to answer using gender as a category of analysis]. When looking at feminism it must be noted that although scholars on feminism agree on a number of points, there are different branches within the discipline. Liberal feminists focus on the inequality between men and women on the basis of sex. They document numerous instances of women s subordination, for example the income inequalities between men and women. Furthermore they highlight the kinds of human rights violations incurred disproportionately by women, such as trafficking and rape in war. (Baylis, 2011. p266.). From this perspective the question arises, - where are women present in the realms of global politics and international relations? Liberal feminists scrutinize how international policy-making is affected by the presence or absence of women, and what effect having more women in positions of power have on the international system and its actions. According to John Baylis, liberal feminists believe that women s equality can be achieved by removing legal and other obstacles that have denied them the same rights as men. (Baylis, 2011. p266.). I feel it important to mention that in my opinion, the liberalist branch of feminism is highly open to criticism. I feel that there needs to be a change in the socially constructed view of gender and not just simply in organisational infrastructure or basic legal or human rights schema. This view is supported by post-liberal feminists who emphasise that gender inequalities continue to exist in societies that have long since achieved formal legal equality. (Baylis, 2011. p266.). Marxist feminists would attempt to answer gender related issues from a significantly different position. Following the existing paradigm within Marxism, the cause for gender related problems is attributed to capitalism. Marxism argues that even

Amish Mamtora

Student No. 574570

a change in the traditional conceptualisation, of women as inferior to men in positions of power, would not eradicate the subordination of women. Jill Steans and Lloyd Pettiford s book International Relations: Perspective and Themes (2001) claims that in relation to gender, Marxist feminists believe the capitalist economic system has led to a division being created between the public world of work and the private world of the home. As a result work carried out by women in a domestic capacity is undervalued. For example the traditional gender bias becomes clear when we see that women s labour is often seen as a labour of love (Steans and Pettiford, 2001) and not valuable work. Marxist analysis claims that due to the distinction of family life being private and separate from the working or public world the reality of power relations was that women and children were effectively reduced to being the private property of men. Feminism in this instance is trying to explain the gendered division of labour. (Baylis, 2011. p270). Returning to the question, feminism believes gender to be a social construction because of the existing interpretations of masculinity and femininity, therefore the questions it tries to answer all relate back to why these interpretations exist and how they came about. We have briefly touched upon the gendered division of labour. Feminism attempts to look at historical foundations of this issue as well as the consequences. The use of gendered terms such as housewife or breadwinner has strongly influenced definitions of masculinity, femininity and capitalism. Terms for women s work have been largely associated with the private sphere of labour. As a result it has become normalised and institutionalised for domestic work to be associated with women and also seen as additional work not requiring payment or wage. (Baylis, 2011. p270). The vital role that woman s unpaid labour makes to the economy in the wider picture has also been rendered invisible (Steans and Pettiford, 2001.) This gendered view has led many IR scholars to believe that women have been exploited and, in effect, privatised. The consequence for International Relations is that women s contribution to the global economy, prevalent ideas about the natural ideas of gender roles, and the separation of the public and private have become core themes in critical feminism today. Feminists argue that the other areas of IR approach the study of global world politics in an inherently gendered way. For example realist thought on sovereignty, the international anarchic order of society and security being centred around military defence is a masculine portrayal of the international system. Peterson and Runyan suggest a useful method of looking at gender issues in their book Global Gender issues in the New Millennium (2010). They describe gender-sensitive lenses which allow us to more easily see the issues raised by gender. If we put on our gender-sensitive lenses, we are effective looking at issues without the existing biases or paradigms that surround us within International Relations. When looking at security and war in this manner a number of realities arise. War and security is strongly linked to masculinity, even historically men have been seen as the more physical beings, or the protectors of women and children. We are told that men fight wars to ensure the safety of women and children and to uphold their human rights. However, [90 per cent of total casualties in war are accounted for by civilian women and children, (Baylis, 2011. p268.). For feminists this suggests that either the men are not effective in war, or that the

Amish Mamtora

Student No. 574570

reasoning behind male domination in war is flawed. Why is it that women are not more frequently seen fighting in wars? In fact the way conflict is perpetuated has previously caused more damage and suffering for women than in the absence of conflict. Women are victimised as a direct result of war. Rape and prostitution is not always an unintended result of war, but often used as a systematic military strategy. Evidence for this comes from the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina where over 30,000 women were raped in a policy associated with ethnic cleansing. (Baylis, 2011. p268.). Feminists also analyse how masculinity is projected onto the world as the true sign of a solider. Soldiers are trained in order to remove any characteristics considered womanly and become real men . The image of men in war is often used to show men as self-sacrificing warriors who fight to protect women. This in itself is highly gendered, woman are also used as the excuse or justification of war. Political and decision-making power is also surrounded by masculine doctrine. Men campaigning to become state leaders often lean heavily on their military training or background to emphasise how strong and determined they are to serve their country. An example of this comes from George W. Bush who used his service in the National Guard in just this capacity. (Baylis, 2011. p269.). Women who participate in global politics also highlight their male characteristics in order to gain support or to fit in . According to John Baylis (2011) this shows that in times of security crisis both men and women support leaders and policies that show more obvious militarized masculinity. (Baylis, 2011. p269.). I have observed that from a feminist viewpoint, in the economic system, women are underpaid and undervalued. Separate spheres have formed between men s work and women s work. Even in organisational structures, where women are equally competent and present in a competitive manner, gendered bias still exists. Furthermore, war and global political environments are infused with strongly masculine material affecting the power and presence of women in those regions. Feminist post structuralism is another branch of feminism that has tried to answer why gender has become biased. Post-structuralism maintains that knowledge is closely related to power and that people who perpetuate knowledge gain power by doing so. Here the argument is that language affects how we interpret and attach meaning to things, therefore since historically men are seen as the knowers (Baylis, 2011. p 269.), what we believe in the public sphere has been generally based on men s experiences so does not reflect women s roles or viewpoints. John Baylis cites Charlotte Hopper in her book Manly States , she claims if we understand the implications that international relations is conducted mainly by men, only then can we begin to truly understand international relations itself. An example that Hopper uses is through her textual analysis of the Economist , a famous British newspaper that, according to Hooper, is filled with masculine markers and themes regardless of the intent of authors and publishers. This shows how our understanding of world politics is influenced by our gender views. A large part of IR feminism is trying to answer the question, what difference would an increased presence of women have on global international politics. IR feminism attempts to imagine what it would be like in a world without gender biases, where masculine and feminine characteristics are not blindly allocated by biological sex, but played equal roles in international relations. One area where we can see this process

Amish Mamtora

Student No. 574570

is in feminist definitions of security. In International Relations security is largely the realm of realist theory. Realism argues that sovereignty, a nations ability to govern itself free of outside interference, and national security, the safety of the state, its structure and its borders, is more important the individual. According to realism the ability of a nation state to defend itself from military threats both domestic and foreign is the most important factor of security. Feminism would see things in a contrasting manner. A feminist definition of security is broader; it is the diminution of all forms of violence, including physical, economic and ecological. (Baylis, 2011. p269.). Here feminism attempts to describe methods and interpretations that are not skewed towards a masculine attitude. This means that according to feminism, if gender was not a contested topic or a biased issue, and women were equally involved in security then all forms of security threats would be treated as equally important. Baylis tell us that if we were to see women as security providers then we can examine security beginning with the individual followed by the community and finally national security. This would reduce or possibly prevent the reduction in individual security and the subordination of women and children in time of conflict. However the possibility arises that as conciliatory gestures are often seen as weak and not in the national interest, this approach may actually lessen the chance of a peaceful conclusion, causing security to decrease on all levels. (Baylis, 2011. p 269.). In the course of this assignment I have attempted to define gender and explain its status as a social construct. The differences that affect gender are clearly epistemological, this needs to change according to IR feminism. I have also attempted to put across my understanding of what feminism believes about gender issues and how it explains the questions raised when observing how gender affects international global politics and international relations issues. I feel that feminism critically analyses the current international system from a well-based and legitimate perspective. Unfortunately the nature of gender perspectives is not likely to change quickly or soon. The gradual views of women s roles as nurturing and compromising are firmly embedded in the international belief system. I feel it is unlikely that the masses will begin to critically evaluate the status quo and attempt to change it in the near future. The implications of this for international relations study is that acting upon the critiques we see will be a long and difficult process. In conclusion although the forging of a perfect system in still a long way of, the fact that alternative critical theories such as feminism are asking challenging questions shows that positive development and change is already underway.

Word Count: 2845

Amish Mamtora

Student No. 574570

References: Baylis, J.(2011). The Globalization of World Politics, An Introduction to International Relations, 5th Ed: Oxford University Press Brown, C.(2005). Understanding International Relations, 3rd Ed: Palgrave Macmillan Darby, P.(1997). At The Edge of International Relations; Postcolonialism, Gender and Dependency: Continuum London & New York Jackson, R. and Sorenson, G.(2007). Introduction to International Relations, Theories and Approaches, 3rd Ed: Oxford University Press Skjelsbaek, I. and Smith, D.(2001). Gender, Peace & Conflict: Sage Publications Pettiford, L. and Steans, J.(2001). International Relations: Perspectives and Themes, :Pearson Education Limited