Part of feminist IR theory seeks to identify the areas in which women have been subordinated. Whether this be in the political, social, or economic arena, female empowerment has not only been making an increasing appearance in IR scholarship, but as well as in social media and among the general public.

In light of the results of the US presidential election, many saw the defeat of Hillary Clinton as an indicator of the persistent sexism that exists in the United States and in politics. Some see Clinton’s defeat as an example of misogyny, and others contend that the United States just wasn’t ready for a female president. People on social media went from tweeting #I’mWithHer to #I’mStillWithHer to emphasize that they are still for female empowerment. Clinton even addressed in her concession speech “and to all the little girls who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and achieve your own dreams.” *cheers and applause* How touching.

I also follow Tamara Taggart on Instagram (not sure why I do, to be honest) and she posted a picture of her daughters in shirts that said “feminist” following the results of the election.  I think she was trying to be positive in light of the events by reassuring everybody that feminism is still alive, and that there is still a chance for women and girls to empower themselves and to achieve great things.

However, why is everyone making this a gender thing?

When we look closer at the results of the election, Clinton actually won the national popular vote. However, whether or not she officially won should not be indicative of any sort of sexism or a pessimistic outlook for future female candidates.

For starters, I’m not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton, and for clarity’s sake, I’m not a fan at all of Donald Trump. If I were an American, I would vote for Hillary Clinton neither because she is a woman, nor because I agree with her political views and character, but because I would rather decrease the chances of having an oompa loompa run the United States. Hillary Clinton is not an excellent alternative, and other women in history have served as greater political leaders than she will based on character (sorry that might have been a little mean), thus there are various reasons to vote against Clinton besides the matter of her sex. While it cannot be ignored that the general public scrutinizes a woman’s behaviour more strictly than a man’s, Hillary wasn’t completely innocent and definitely didn’t have a clean track record. It is still important to note however, that there were those who voted against her because she is a woman, there were also those who voted for her because she is a woman.

In regards to Feminist IR, it is important that theorists avoid falling into such traps as these. While some events may be suggestive of ‘an end of feminism’ or further/persistent subordination of women, that is not always the case. Surely what IR feminists are doing is significant in the name of empowering women and destructing the socially constructed characteristics and ceilings for women in their participation in politics, but I would hope (and do believe) that IR feminists are much smarter in their analysis of events such as these. Not all seemingly pessimistic events that pertain to gender are indicative of gender inequality, and not all hope is lost even if (or though) gender inequality persists in some areas of our society today.