In the famous words of Robert Cox, “theory is always for someone and for some purpose.” Therefore, knowledge is always biased as it is based on the perspective of certain indviduals, and it addresses the problems of the world of its time and place. In regards to Feminist IR, a lot of their theory is centered around gender inequalities, the emancipation of women, and inequal treatment of women in comparison to men under certain social, political, and economic structures. Regardless of the background of each feminist, whether it be from a liberal, post-colonial, post-structuralist, etc. perspective, all feminist can agree to converge on the basis of gender. In relation to the broader stream of IR, feminist contributions have emphasized the importance of looking at how men and women affect and are affected by international politics. Most feminists push for the adoption of a ‘feminist consciousness’ or a ‘feminist lens’ when looking at issues in IR, especially as there has been a lack of attention towards experiences of women in the international arena. Further, they raise attention to the invisibility of women within IR, a field that is not only dominated by men but shaped by men too.

Going back to the Robert Cox quote, we see that theory has a problem-solving purpose and a critical purpose that aims to get people to become aware of certain situations and to establish an emancipatory perspective. While it is quite evident that Feminist IR has set out to explain how employing a feminist perspective enhances our understand of international politics and aims to highlight areas where women have been largely ignored in international relations discourse, it is arguable who this theory is really for. On the one hand, Feminist IR is seen to be created for women for the sake of elevating womens’ voices and experiences in the conversations between men in IR, but upon closer scrutiny, it can very much be argued that feminist IR is more for men than it is for women.

Women are already aware of their inequality and subordination within social, political, economic, and even academic structures. The purpose of feminist IR is not to further highlight those areas for women, but to essentially convince men that women are ‘worth’ including in the study of IR as a discipline and in foreign policy formation. This is thus kind of ironic because while most of feminist IR seeks to highlight how socially constructed characteristics associated with men and women have led to masculine hegemony, they are in part further reinforcing those characteristics in their attempt to show how women’s experiences are worthy of being studied (perhaps implying and following along with the previous assumption that women were invisible and negligent to the study of security and foreign policy).

When feminist are studying the gendered nature of the economy and security and are providing a closer analysis of political and economic situations in history, it is thus important to ask (and remember) who those works of knowledge are for. Are they for women, in the name of emancipation and female empowerment, or are they for men, in the name of getting them to recognize that women aren’t as ‘weak’ and ’emotional’ as they thought?

Whether or not this changes how IR will be studied by feminists, I am not exactly sure. While it is recognized that generating feminist IR theories soley for women will not really help their advancement into the international political sphere, as part of the problem of their subordination is the lack of acknowledgement towards women by men, it is still perhaps important to pay attention to who certain theories are created for. Are we empowering women here, or are we stroking the egos of men by emphasizing how much weaker women have been portrayed to be in various social, political, and economic spheres?… Or both?

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.

Feminist IR is (unfortunately) marginal at best when put up against mainstream IR. IR Feminists focus on how the international system affects men and women (disproportionately), and looks at how the core concepts of IR are gendered. IR Feminists also seek to bring issues such as the invisibility of women and gender inequalities in world politics to the forefront, and argue that a greater understanding of women’s experiences would help our understanding of international politics. In the current scheme of things, feminine/gender topics have been quite absent in IR and this could be attributed to the fact that IR is still a largely male dominated discipline. This can be attributed to the fact that women receive greater criticism for their behaviours within the private and public sphere, and that women’s socioeconomic status are persistently lower than that of men.

Some reasons why Feminist IR has been excluded from mainstream IR stems from its focus and epistemological standpoint. IR Feminists place an inherent focus on gender relations and inequalities caused by social, political, and economic structures, rather than on the mainstream IR core concepts of the anarchic international system and the behaviour of states. Further, others criticize Feminist IR for their mere political engagement with issues rather than attempting to solve problems, and even more critique Feminist for their inability to provide verifiable data and lack of scientific methodology. However, given the nature of Feminist IR and the core concepts of their paradigm that entail breaking down the social constructions of masculinity and feminity within social, political, economic, and academic contexts, is it fair to ask IR Feminists to engage in such a radical change in methodology?

On the one hand, it may be necessary for IR Feminists to consider such suggestions purely on the basis of receiving entry into mainstream IR. If they wish to be taken seriously by theorists of mainstream IR, many of which stand by positivism and rationalism (especially in the U.S.), they may have to ‘fake it ’til they make it,’ just as how timid freshmen may do to gain popularity among the seniors. Once these IR Feminists “make it” and achieve a more prominent status and gain more acceptance and recognition by the “seniors” of conventional IR, they may then try to push their post-positivist methodology and epistemology onto the conventional IR theorists in hopes of generating greater acceptance of the diversity of methodologies employed in IR and of the general Feminist IR theory.

However, one must also consider and be sensitive to the fact that “giving in” to the demands of the masculine structure of IR may imply that they tolerate such forms of female discrimination. In addition, it may be too much to ask of IR Feminists to alter their research methods just for the sake of getting others to accept their view. Would this come across as desperacy or as a necessary and strategic move?

All in all, while it may be easy for IR Feminists to simply decide to “take their business elsewhere,” continuous communication and engagement with their own little Feminist community (as opposed to the wider network of IR) does not allow for much development and traction of their important ideas. The real dilemma lies in deciding between adapting to the needs and requests of mainstream IR and fitting in, and sticking true to one’s epistemology and roots.