Gendered Concepts of International Relations: Security
Security is a core concept in International Relations (IR), traditionally understood as the protection of the state from external threats, primarily through military power. Feminist scholars argue that this dominant understanding of security is deeply gendered—both in what it prioritizes and in what it renders invisible. By centering the state, borders, and armed force, mainstream security studies privilege masculinized values such as strength, control, and aggression, while marginalizing everyday insecurities, care, and human vulnerability.
This unit examines how security operates as a gendered concept and how feminist IR redefines security by shifting attention from states to people, from war to everyday life, and from militarization to justice.
Traditional Security Thinking and Its Gendered Assumptions
Conventional IR, particularly realism, defines security in terms of state survival within an anarchic international system. Threats are assumed to be external and military in nature, and security is achieved through deterrence, armament, and strategic alliances.
Feminist scholars argue that this model is not gender-neutral. It is built upon masculinist assumptions that associate security with toughness, autonomy, and the willingness to use violence. Traits coded as feminine—such as care, cooperation, and interdependence—are dismissed as irrelevant or weak.
As a result, traditional security frameworks overlook how war, militarization, and state policies affect people differently, especially women and marginalized communities.
Militarization, Masculinity, and Security
Feminist IR highlights the close relationship between militarization and hegemonic masculinity. Militaries valorize ideals of bravery, discipline, sacrifice, and physical strength—qualities culturally associated with masculinity. National security narratives often depict the state as a masculine protector and citizens (especially women and children) as those who must be protected.
J. Ann Tickner argues that this protector–protected logic reinforces gender hierarchies while legitimizing militarized responses to insecurity. Security becomes equated with military preparedness rather than with social well-being.
Similarly, Cynthia Enloe shows how everyday militarization—through bases, war economies, and nationalist cultures—shapes women’s lives, often increasing their vulnerability while claiming to enhance national security.
Whose Security? From State Security to Human Security
A central feminist intervention asks: security for whom? Feminist scholars argue that state security does not automatically translate into security for individuals. Policies pursued in the name of national security—wars, counterinsurgency, border control—often produce profound insecurity for civilians.
Women experience insecurity not only during armed conflict but also in times of “peace,” through domestic violence, economic precarity, displacement, and lack of access to healthcare and education. These forms of insecurity are rarely captured by traditional security studies.
Feminist IR therefore aligns with and deepens the concept of human security, which emphasizes freedom from fear and freedom from want. Security, from this perspective, is about sustaining life and dignity, not merely defending borders.
War, Sexual Violence, and Gendered Insecurity
One of the most visible manifestations of gendered insecurity is sexual violence in conflict. Feminist scholars argue that rape and sexual abuse are not accidental by-products of war but systematic practices linked to militarized masculinity and power.
Sexual violence is used to terrorize populations, destroy communities, and assert dominance. Yet traditional IR treated such violence as peripheral to security analysis. Feminist IR insists that these experiences are central to understanding how security actually operates on the ground.
By foregrounding women’s embodied experiences, feminist analysis exposes the limits of abstract, state-centric models of security.
Security, Care, and Social Reproduction
Feminist critiques also emphasize that security depends on social reproduction—the everyday labor of sustaining families, communities, and societies. This labor, disproportionately performed by women, includes caregiving, emotional support, and community maintenance.
Militarized security often undermines these practices by diverting resources from social welfare to defense spending. Feminist scholars argue that a society cannot be secure if the conditions of everyday life are precarious.
This perspective reframes security as a question of care, resilience, and social justice, challenging the primacy of military solutions.
Postcolonial Feminist Critiques of Security
Postcolonial feminist scholars highlight how global security regimes are structured by unequal power relations between the Global North and South. Interventions justified in the name of international security—such as humanitarian wars or counterterrorism—often produce instability and suffering in postcolonial societies.
Women in these contexts are frequently portrayed as victims needing rescue, reinforcing paternalistic narratives while ignoring local agency. Feminist critiques reveal security as a disciplinary project, regulating populations rather than protecting them.
Rethinking Security: Feminist Alternatives
Feminist IR does not merely critique existing security frameworks; it proposes alternatives. These include demilitarization, investment in social welfare, conflict prevention, and inclusive peace processes.
By centering lived experiences, feminist approaches argue that genuine security must address structural inequalities—gendered, racial, and economic—that produce violence and vulnerability.
Security, in this reimagined framework, becomes a collective and relational condition, grounded in justice rather than force.
Conclusion: Security as a Gendered Concept
Feminist IR reveals security to be a profoundly gendered concept that reflects and reproduces hierarchies of power. Traditional security thinking privileges militarized masculinity and state interests while marginalizing human experiences of fear and deprivation.
By redefining security in people-centered and justice-oriented terms, feminist scholars expand the scope of IR and challenge its ethical foundations. Understanding security through a gendered lens thus transforms it from a narrow strategic concern into a broader political and moral question.
References
- Tickner, J. Ann. Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security.
- Enloe, Cynthia. Bananas, Beaches and Bases.
- Peterson, V. Spike. Gendered States.
- Sylvester, Christine. War as Experience.
- Hooper, Charlotte. Manly States.
